Generational Dynamics Forum - New Site

Great question re: new tech for nuclear weapons neutralization ... hmmm

How good are these ballistic missiles, really? I don't doubt they are good in the same hemisphere (border country or Japan from China, etc) but at a distance? I ask because I don't know and although I do see the capabilities as being amazing, I always sense most of it is still sensationalized as well.

I find it unlikely China will launch a mass nuclear barrage to start the war, but just for the sake of argument, let's say they do, with the primary goal being to destroy our nuclear capability.

Say they do have 3,000 warheads. Question is, do all of them have the capability to hit us? I would have to say no, given all their short and medium range missiles, so perhaps 2,000 of them are capable of landing in the United States itself.

Air fields and naval bases would likely be the top priority. Missile silos might be a secondary target, but they only carry a single warhead now. Now to destroy an air base, you'd need a couple air bursts (20PSI should be sufficient to destroy aircraft and hangars, plus one ground burst for each runway. So for many air bases, you're talking 4-5 nuclear weapons to take it out.

Most of our inactive nuclear weapons would be destroyed, for we would have no time to get them operational again. Naval bases would require multiple hits as well and we've got dozens of them throughout the nation. Nuclear submarines in port would be vulnerable, but some would be patrolling through the ocean.

How accurate Chinese warheads is a subject for debate. In the Cold War, it was estimated at least 2-4 warheads would be needed for a 90% kill probability. Our accuracy has improved to the point where we could destroy a silo in a single shot, but I'm not sure China has that ability. Even if every warheads destroyed a target, that's 450 warheads expended, along with numerous command and control centers.

Assuming the attack went well, my estimate is 60-70% of our active arsenal destroyed and 90% of our inactive nuclear weapons. We'd still be able to hit back with around 400-600 nuclear bombs and since their arsenal is exhausted, we'd be able to divert some warheads into their cities, killing millions.

I find it more likely that a full nuclear barrage would be a desperation move, one similar to the Kamikaze attacks Japan launched once the Allies were on the verge of invading the Home Islands.

I think that's why it's most likely that they keep to their hemisphere and that is where all the danger actually is.

Is the defense for a nuclear weapon still a high atmosphere anti-nuclear nuke at this point?

We don't know what China has exactly.

We do know they have 3,000+ miles of underground tunnels where nuclear weapons and bases are located.

China has been massively underestimated to their benefit and I think the Chinese attack will shock the world just as when the German military quickly defeated the French military in WWII. The French military was considered the most powerful military in the world at the time of France's defeat.

"The weapons will not necessarily be fired, of course. They will shore up the postwar balance of power just by their existence. They will keep our postwar enemies from stepping out of line by the implied threat to use them. They will preserve the postwar peace by being a deterrent force. Just as nuclear weapons preserve the peace today."

Another quote from The Day After World War III by Edward Zuckerman.

This kind of rationalization is alarming once you understand Generational Theory as the reason no new terrible wars have broken out is not because of the threat of nuclear weapons but the generational cycle itself.

Correlation is not causation and I believe these weapons will be used no different then the crossbow when it first arrived, dynamite, modern cartridge firearms, etc.

tim wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 13, 2021 3:40 pm

"The weapons will not necessarily be fired, of course. They will shore up the postwar balance of power just by their existence. They will keep our postwar enemies from stepping out of line by the implied threat to use them. They will preserve the postwar peace by being a deterrent force. Just as nuclear weapons preserve the peace today."

Another quote from The Day After World War III by Edward Zuckerman.

This kind of rationalization is alarming once you understand Generational Theory as the reason no new terrible wars have broken out is not because of the threat of nuclear weapons but the generational cycle itself.

Correlation is not causation and I believe these weapons will be used no different then the crossbow when it first arrived, dynamite, modern cartridge firearms, etc.

That is yet to be seen, tim. You may be right ... but you may be wrong. There is nothing written into the universe the way you state it is. I think generational cycles actually take place, but you take it to a God/religion level. That it MUST happen which also means it MUST happen by a certain time. It doesn't. I know too much about the world to believe that it must. It can delay, and yes, that actually does prove your theory incorrect.

Thus, the back and forth we have with you and John, etc.

Cool Breeze wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 13, 2021 10:35 pm

tim wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 13, 2021 3:40 pm

"The weapons will not necessarily be fired, of course. They will shore up the postwar balance of power just by their existence. They will keep our postwar enemies from stepping out of line by the implied threat to use them. They will preserve the postwar peace by being a deterrent force. Just as nuclear weapons preserve the peace today."

Another quote from The Day After World War III by Edward Zuckerman.

This kind of rationalization is alarming once you understand Generational Theory as the reason no new terrible wars have broken out is not because of the threat of nuclear weapons but the generational cycle itself.

Correlation is not causation and I believe these weapons will be used no different then the crossbow when it first arrived, dynamite, modern cartridge firearms, etc.

That is yet to be seen, tim. You may be right ... but you may be wrong. There is nothing written into the universe the way you state it is. I think generational cycles actually take place, but you take it to a God/religion level. That it MUST happen which also means it MUST happen by a certain time. It doesn't. I know too much about the world to believe that it must. It can delay, and yes, that actually does prove your theory incorrect.

Thus, the back and forth we have with you and John, etc.

Have you read The Fourth Turning?

Are you a determinist?

Answering a question with a question and holding such a strong opinion of material you’ve never read.....

Read the material and then tell me why “it’s different this time”.

tim wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 16, 2021 5:47 pm

Answering a question with a question and holding such a strong opinion of material you’ve never read.....

Read the material and then tell me why “it’s different this time”.

I understand that objection, but let's be clear, as a few of us have said that it may be different this time. We aren't so locked into a particular scenario or a particular time frame as you seem to be (tell me if that is incorrect). Technology and the elite interests in manipulating the masses makes it far different this time. That doesn't mean a war won't happen, but it does mean, as those of us who think things aren't determined suggest, that things can be qualitatively different and delayed.

The fun part is that we will know if the determinist camp is wrong. The question is, as I have asked, what will they say when wrong?