dc0de wrote:

Strategic ICBMs ~ 800 Warheads (Yield 300-500Kt ea.)
Sea-Based ICBMs ~ 1440 Warheads (Yield 300Kt ea.) [SSBNs]
~ 144 Warheads (Yield 200Kt ea.) [Fast Attack]

yep. cuz you didn't read what I wrote. For one, all of those weapons would not be able to be launched because they would either be destroyed on the first strikes, or there would be no command & control systems left to arm and fire them after the first or second strikes. Second, more than 1/3 of what you list as current armament are tactical weapons and most wouldn't be fired in an all out exchange, plus their yields are too small for any long term climate damage.

Plus simply adding up the # of warheads and the yield per class doesn't give you a good picture of total tonnage or even average tonnage. You could still be off by at least 1 standard deviation using that technique, possibly more.

Ok, so cut it in half... you're saying that no long term climatological changes would be in effect for 1/2 or even 1/3? Ok... I'm no climatologist, but if one volcano can effect the global climate, I don't see how we can miss having 192,000 Kilotons (1/3 of the smallest figure) of Nuclear explosions, and resulting material floating in the stratosphere without effecting the climate...

and for the record, I'm having a spirited discussion... and I DID read what you wrote...

If you really think that the Nuclear Command Control and Communications system would be broken for 2nd and 3rd strikes, I might suggest that your information regarding the strength of the nuclear arsenal of the United States might not be accurate. I am, however, interested in how the SLBM fleet would be disabled... and therefore could not fire their weapons...

Just to clarify, I didn't postulate that there would be no climate change. I stated that life on earth would not be destroyed in a full on exchange between all nuclear powers at the height of the Cold War. There would DEFINITELY be climate damage, for decades, with probably 3/4 of the world's population murdered. But it would not cease life on Earth, even human life.

I'm guessing when I say that most launch sites and depots would be destroyed by the first or second rounds. I don't really know. I'm sure C&C would survive in pockets and may be even fully operational, but even NORAD would've gotten destroyed in a full on exchange. I gotta think that all sides know exactly how to disable each other and they know where all the depots, launch sites, and distribution facilities are. That's why despite the Cold War being 'over', there are still hundreds of spies deployed. Wherever Dick Cheney was hiding is probably not enough to keep the joint chiefs of staff in operation and command of the force following a full on exchange. They may be able to regroup after a few days though. Who knows. I don't really want to find out.

As for the SBLM fleet, it's an excellent launch platform, since you can get very close to strategic targets that are deep within enemy territory or highly protected. But that doesn't mean that they are immune from disability. For one, they are severely limited in their armament loads, so they might only be able to get off a few more rounds than a stealth bomber before they are either destroyed or run out. Second, if they are truly close to enemy territory in order to do the most damage for a highly strategic target, then they are also in the most danger of being destroyed by other subs, destroyers, or tactical surface missiles. As the Russians proved many times, you can't dive very deep in the Black Sea or the Arctic Circle.

Don't get me wrong. I'm enjoying the discussion. Makes me want to play a game of Fallout!

RE: AM - Gore warns on climate change