US Nuclear Weapons

[kato13]

chico20854 08-22-2005, 09:13 AM I've been working on a revised target list for the USSR, and a few questions arose regarding US/NATO nuclear weapons delivery systems.


I've got what I think is a complete list of US strategic weapons delivery systems, extrapolating for the continuation of the Cold War. Basically, continued production of US Boomers and retirement of old Poseidon boats, completion of the British Trident boats and the retention of the last British Polaris sub. On bombers, B-2 bomber production at a slightly accelerated rate than actual, retention of some older B-52s, FB-111 mission transferred to B-1Bs and FB-111s used for theater tasks. On missiles, Minuteman IIs remain in service and no INF treaty so Pershing IIs and GLCMs remain in service. (I wasn't going to do this, but canon makes several references to NATO theater missiles).


I've been wondering about a few things when trying to match these assets up with a target list.


First, how to allocate targets between tactical, theater and strategic weapons. I am trying not to get too into the weeds with tactical weapons, but if a F-16 drops a 50kt nuke on a SU-24 base in Ukraine in a counterair op, then that's one target off my strategic weapon target list. So basically I've decided that all military targets in western Belorussia, Ukraine and the Baltic states where hit by theater or tactical weapons, or else flattened by conventional airstrikes prior to the war going nuclear. This doesn't quite jive with canon, which has strategic weapons being used against troop concentrations in Poland, but tough luck. I'll figure something out!


Two, how much slack to build into the allocation of weapons to targets. Assigning each warhead (or however many are required to assure a reasonable chance of nuetralization) to a specific target leaves a chance that something will not get hit if the bomber gets shot down, the SSBN gets sunk or the Soviets hit the missile field first. Add into that down time for maintenance of the weapons and it's a whole big can of worms. I'm sure there is an answer out there, but its classified! Any guesses on what's appropriate? I'm thinking of the neighborhood of 25 percent...


Another issue is the nature of the target list. The NRDC's notional SIOP is based around the assumption that a nuclear war will be a violent convulsion in which every possible warhead is launched essentially at once. The Twilight War doesn't develop that way... instead it drags out over several months. If you're going for the all-at-once model, you need to launch lots of missiles immediately at the enemy's nuclear weapons before they can be used against you. If it drags on for months, you have to actively decide to not strike the enemy's nukes. So what happens, I imagine, is that senior leaders (SAC Generals? Regional Commanders ala General McLean in CENTCOM? President Tanner? A NATO Committee?) decide what gets hit. Visions of LBJ poring over aerial photos of North Vietnam... it complicates things. Finally, since its an ongoing war, the target list changes. No need to drop 700kt on an empty silo, and you have new targets pop up i.e. recon satellites locate a previously undiscovered communications facility in the Urals. You can also use your weapons more efficiently with BDA, by only dropping 1 weapon on a target that you may have had allocated 2 to hit to ensure destruction.


Finally, how to use bombers. Bluntly, I don't think a B-52 or B-1B has much chance of making a penetration of the Soviet air defense net, especially if its augmented by a mobilization-only backup system. I envision using B-2s for two roles: a door-opener, to take out key defensive positions like the ABM radars around Moscow and Air defense HQs, and as a giant killer, able to drop the 9MT B53 bomb on super-hard targets like some of the bunkers in the Urals that have almost 1000 feet of granite overhead. (not that even 9 MT would burn off more than a few hundred feet... but it would sure seal the exits!) For the B-1Bs, they don't have the range for a penetration mission, I envision using them to launch SRAM-II (a cancelled replacement for the SRAM) missiles to blast a whole in the Soviet AD net in more lightly guarded theaters. (Basically, take out a 1000-mile wide section of the Soviet Arctic coast, nuking every AD radar and airbase with a standoff nuclear missile. Make a whole so big that maintaining a CAP is impossible). For B-52s, I see a few roles. Most were modified as cruise missile carriers. They can be used outside the Soviet Union in a standoff role, no penetration needed. Thirty were modified for conventional maritime missions (anti-ship, mine laying), so I've taken them out of my planning, since the naval battle was intense. The remaining few dozen I'll use for conventional and later nuclear bombing in less intense theaters of operations. After the Soviet air defense net has the whole blasted in it, B-52s can stream in and augment the B-2s in hitting superhard sites and targets that missiles didn't get to for one reason or another. Maybe even try to maintain a partial NUKECAP (nice term I just invented!) with a BUFF orbiting over a random spot in Siberia to hit targets of opportunity, like rail-based ICBMs or even troop trains.


The intensity of the air battle I think would be variable. In central Europe, Iran and Korea things are high- very high. The Chinese theater and the Mediterranean are less active... the Soviets have general air superiority over China and NATO airpower based off of the Sixth Fleet and bases in Morocco, Gibraltar, Egypt and Israel could obtain air superiority over the Italian and Greek air forces, which would be overstretched having to maintain a war in the Alps, Balkans and Turkey while guarding their rear and flanks from NATO airpower. As the war goes on, the air war in these theaters diminishes, as remaining resources are redeployed to more important theaters.


Putting a B-52 into the high intensity areas would be suicidal, IMHO. The opportunity for BUFFs and B1s to execute penetration raids of the USSR would be over the North Pole/Alaska, maybe through western China/Pakistan/Afghanistan and over Turkey and the Black Sea. Other useful missions would include striking Italy and Greece and the Soviet garrison in Cahm Ran Bay. The strikes from the south would require some fairly radical basing and tanker improvisations... Cairo West air base for the Turkey/Black Sea route, Australia, Singapore or Thailand for the western China route.


And another thought just came into my head... when all is said and done, I have a feeling there will be lots of warheads left. How to handle this? One approach is to say the rest were destroyed by enemy action. Another is to double the allocation of weapons to targets "to make sure we got them". But as Paul noted, the canon list of targets leaves a lot of nuke bases untouched. I'd be reluctant to conclude that Milgov has a substantial (or really any) stockpile of warheads, even in a manner that is pretty useless to them (i.e. SLBM warheads but no submarines).


So once again I have rambled on excessively! Sorry! Hopefully these will help your thinking and Webstral's history upon his return. Let me know your thoughts.

********************

Matt Wiser 08-22-2005, 06:03 PM Chico, check the threads on Naval forces in T2K-I was dissatisfied with canon having the City of Corpus Christi as the last sub and came up with several surviving fast-attack and missile subs on both coasts (basing out of Norfolk and Bangor, WA). Feel free to use that material if you wish.

Regarding bombers: the B-52s in SIOP had a mix of roles-some were ALCM

carriers-shoot and scoot. Some were shoot and penetrate with ALCM, SRAM, and gravity bombs. The B-1Bs were mainly penetrators,armed with bombs, SRAM (and planned SRAM-II), with the B-2s planned to have gone after highly defended targets or hunt for mobile ICBMs;

SS-24 trains and SS-25s on road-mobile launchers. BTW the B-2 was not certified to carry the B-53 bomb. Only the B-52 was. Another B-2 role was to be as a nuclear Wild Weasel-hitting radar sites, SAM batteries, and fighter bases with SRAM-IIs to burn paths for the follow-on B-52s and B-1s. The really, really defended targets (basically anything in the Moscow-Leningrad

area), if assigned to bombers, were meant for ALCMs.

Check the movie By Dawn's Early Light for how things would've gone in a bomber.

********************