Hi everyone,

I'm a graduate student who is studying political science, and is interested in nuclear deterrence. I've read prominent theorists like Thomas Schelling and Bernard Brodie, along with IR scholars like Colin Gray and Kenneth Waltz. Now, since Christmas break is nearly here, I want to take a break from academic reading, and am looking for something relaxing but engaging to help me recharge my batteries before the Winter semester.

I'm looking for any novel that engages with nuclear deterrence, and actually showcases its benefits. I'm not looking for nuclear war scenarios. I personally find it more interesting to explore how nuclear weapons force great powers to consider alternate options instead of resorting to war. I'm also not looking for anything related to nonproliferation and disarmament, since I don't believe either are feasible. Instead, I'm looking for something that treats the existence of nuclear weapons as a reality we have to live with.

Thanks in advance guys!

What would happen?

ORDER OF LENIN USSR ACADEMY OF MEDICAL SCIENCE 

NATIONAL RADIATION MEDICINE 

RESEARCH CENTER 

ACT 

on K.P. Buteyko-s VDBE Method approval (in 1990)

in accordance with the Cooperation Agreement of January 3, 1990 

between the USSR AMS NRMRC 

and the therapeutic center 

"Buteyko Breathing" 

headed by Candidate of Medicine K. P. Buteyko

The VDBE Method therapy was tested on 50 patients of the USSR AMSE NRMRC Institute of Clinical Radiology departments and departments of Kiev Shevchenko CRCB with the purpose of identifying the clinical and pathophysiological mechanisms of Buteyko Breathing in persons affected by ionizing radiology in Chernobyl disaster. 

The following results were achieved: hemodynamic, blood test and intestinal system improvements were revealed in 82% of patients. Upon analysis of patients- records and diaries, the following conclusions can be made: 

1. The VDBE method reduces the use of drugs, and in time totally discontinues medication therapy for some individuals. 

2. In multiple therapy, the VDBE method provides improvement of blood and some hemodynamic (blood pressure, pulse) values. 

3. The VDBE method as one of the bracing non-conventional methods does not result in complications or side-effects. 

4. The VDBE Method is further recommendable for rehabilitation of the Chernobyl disaster victims as one of the drug-free therapy components. 

Director,

Institute of Clinical Radiology

Prof. 

V. G. Bebeshko

Senior Researcher,

Department of Neurology

A.B. Denisyuk

In a multi-stage warhead, does the radiation case need a carefully designed shape to reflect the x-rays evenly around the secondary, or is it just a situation where there are so many photons that it doesn't matter?

I find myself thinking of the critical symmetry of the lenses around the primary and wondering if it's a similar situation with compressing the secondary.

BLUF FOIA Request to DTRA 5 years later coughs up hundreds of pages of previously non-public records on nuclear winter modeling.

DTRA Final Response Letter description of my request:

“You requested a copy of any and all reports and planning documents discussing efforts to assess or model the climate impacts of nuclear war and the results and findings of any such efforts for the search time period January 1, 1982 to January 1, 2019.”

All posted to my OSF (https://osf.io/46sfd/ navigate to subfolder \FOIA Results: My Requests\DTRA nuclear winter modeling) freely & publicly available.

HIGHLIGHTS!

Document 1 (23 pages) Cited in other docs, not on OSTI, now publicly available:

Knox, Joseph B. (1983). “Global Scale Deposition of Radioactivity from a Large Scale Exchange.” UCRL Series. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Presented at the Third International Conference on Nuclear War, Erice, Sicily, Italy, August 16 – 24. https://osf.io/gy3dj

Document 3 (293 pages) Many of the Technical Papers Presented at the Defense Nuclear Agency Global Effects Review (Volume 1), 1988 April 19 – 21. https://osf.io/wjgpv

Document 5 (264 pages) Many of the Technical Papers Presented at the Defense Nuclear Agency Global Effects Review (Volume 3), 1988 April 19 – 21. https://osf.io/us7tg

 Document 8 (235 pages) A collection of scientific journal articles, news articles, lab publications, and other papers about or related to nuclear winter, most or all from the 1980s. I have not examined these in detail to see which are newly introduced into open record and which already exist there. https://osf.io/9bd6p

This is something I very rarely see talked about. A war isn't just going to end once nuclear weapons are used. The US dropped 7.5 million tons of bombs during the Vietnam War, equivalent to 83 W76-1 warheads. Keep in mind that dropping millions of conventional bombs is going to do far more damage to a country than a single large bomb, as blast radius increases with the cube root of explosive yield and you can vary targets as intelligence comes in. All of this was against a third-world country in the 1960s with a population of 18 million controlling an area the size of West Virginia, and the US still couldn't conquer them.

I mean, if you just count the number of strategic targets in the US, Europe, Japan, South Korea, and Australia (air/sea ports, power stations, major bridges, military bases, war factories, refineries, etc.), you're easily talking about 10,000+ targets Russia and China would have to take out to truly cripple the West's economy and war effort. Realistically, they'd be lucky to get a quarter of that. They only have something like 2,000 active warheads and the rest would be destroyed in their storage facilities on the first day of a total war. NATO's situation isn't any better. As such, I really don't think a nuclear war would really be the instant stalemate most people view it as. The only time that might have been the case is from 1970-1990 or so, when there were far more active nuclear warheads than there are now. A few weeks after a nuclear exchange, everyone still alive will have to go back to work and the war machine will chug along, just like it did in WWI and WWII, until one side or the other capitulates.

On 22 November Russia used a "Oreshnik" MIRVed IRBM against the Ukrainian city of Dnipro. Geolocation suggests the 6 independent reentry vehicles, each with 6 inert submunitions, landed within their intended target, the Pivdenmash rocket factory, a 2 km long by 1 km wide complex.

https://x.com/GeoConfirmed/status/1859605424980279792
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PA_Pivdenmash
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Yuzhny+Machine-Building+Plant/@48.4356313,34.9874161,1277m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m6!3m5!1s0x40dbe3689dc664cd:0x65a95d5f1852eeb0!8m2!3d48.4377059!4d34.995365!16s%2Fg%2F11xcw6q57?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MTEyNC4xIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

I crudely estimate the terminal velocity to be about 3,000 m/s (Mach 9), based on a frame height of 500 m estimated from the stacks in the plant and the munitions requiring ~2 frames in a ~12 fps video to traverse this distance. It's difficult to know the lateral spread given the lack of a geolocated from the side, but within 1 km seems reasonable.

My main interest is in the payload bus of the Oreshnik and perhaps its CEP. The Oreshnik is a conventionally armed RS-26, itself a shortened version of the RS-24 Yars with "one fewer stages". Is it reasonable to assume all variants use a similar payload bus? And further that the standard payload can be up to at least 6 warheads? (Intelligence analysts on the ground will be trying to determine this and more.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oreshnik_(missile)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS-26_Rubezh
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS-24_Yars

The RS-24 appears to be the most abundant ICBM in the Soviet arsenal, hence the interest.
https://thebulletin.org/premium/2024-03/russian-nuclear-weapons-2024/

How exactly this thing works? Some menbrane cutting system? Or valve? To fill sand plug with water to fall under capsule?

Unbiased towards any war going on at this point, other than wishing for no more at all, which is impossible; however, looking at historical context, I've seen one actual nuclear incident. There has been chemical warfare, and I guess you could say that's about the most similar type of bomb you can have. It brings back thoughts on the warheads. We've had the capability, and we've used it. Decades ago, the world saw the power of such weapons. Since then, no one has had the mindset to push that button. I don't know if there is a leader in the world who will. I think this is the real question: who will be the one? Which country will be next? It won't be Russia on Ukraine, and it won't be Israel on the West Bank; I see these as too close in proximity. My top pick for activating such weapons, given our borders of oceans. We the United States of America.. thankfully the mindset of the incoming president is to not have War. We need not forget what's going on, what is going to happen threat. With the fact that it would be multiple Warheads this time. That said , perhaps , The more devastating other than the initial impact. Nuclear winter would devastate the world. It would be after the ashes dust to dust rest in your asses within death.

Edit: The DF-5 ICBM is liquid-fueled so they can't indefinitely be prefilled for too long. Unless they're using some kind of fuel I'm unware of that allows long term storage.

They could have rotations of maintenance schedules to ensure the ICBMs are functional and not being damaged.

They could perform maintenance on a batch of some number of ICBMs every X amount of months whenever necessary.

During conflict or when tensions rise, the warheads and penetration aids can be attached so that if a LOW is given they launch.

I believe it would be better to keep the DF-5 variant ICBMs in service to boost numbers, even with newer ICBMs like the DF-41. More ICBMs means more warheads that can be launched, so it doesn't make sense to get rid of something that works.

I'm skeptical of this idea that China has to wait 2 hours to fill their DF-5s before launching makes no sense, when they theoretically can be prefilled.

What kind of fuel would allow, lets say 90 day storage? Or 60 days storage? How expensive would maintenance be?

It seems to be a new model of Reinforcement bunker of RVSN. It is unknown when it was first built.

15V210 near Barnaul may have stopped construction due to the collapse of the Soviet Union. This facility was discussed on the Russian Internet more than a decade ago, but I don't know Russian and don't know what they are discussing. Its interior may be a communication center. Its relationship with the Perimeter system is unclear. Its survivability against nuclear weapons should be lower than that of Yamantau and other bunkers in Mounts.

Two are located at the headquarters of RVSN, Vlasikha 55°40'55"N 37°12'21"E

One is next to the rocket force museum in Balabanovo 55°11'17"N 36°36'35"E. Its purpose is unknown

One is next to Chekhov-8 55°9'47"N 37°12'44"E. Its purpose is unknown

One is in the suburbs of Yasny 51°4'46"N 59°44'57"E. It may belong to the 13th Missile Division

The last unfinished Command Center is near Barnaul at 53°33'58"N 84°16'40"E. It may belong to the nearby rocket force. The facility in the picture is this one.

https://preview.redd.it/jiif75th2d3e1.jpg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2252902fdd5b40e4e880f9f2a1312f37ee0fcbf1

https://preview.redd.it/97pibwui2d3e1.jpg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=938d148efc2fcc35ffc79af4c4d5974ef89e28f6

https://preview.redd.it/8cuj8hoj2d3e1.jpg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4d574714666834b2cf3e60ea0eb6ad09c47319f5

https://preview.redd.it/1c4c8ixk2d3e1.jpg?width=800&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fdc7d2d4fcf519b0d4eb2aeb7bba2af8d9dae80e

https://preview.redd.it/y8ag0g4m2d3e1.jpg?width=800&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f3898df2975393aca2b5c9f4a290fa37b50bb6e3

https://www.space.com/the-universe/earth/nasa-aircraft-uncovers-site-of-secret-cold-war-nuclear-missile-tunnels-under-greenland-ice-sheet?utm_source=Live+Audience&utm_campaign=a67b5deca2-nature-briefing-daily-20241126&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b27a691814-a67b5deca2-50594980

I have crippling anxiety about what is happening in regards to the Ukraine/Russia war and what it might mean for nuclear war globally.

I have tried to calm myself down by reminding myself that I can’t control any outcomes, and I won’t do any good to my mental health by continuing to worry. I am seeing a ton of what I think to be fearbait/clickbait online and can’t discern what is true.

Can anyone tell me what is actually going on in regards to Biden potentially giving the Ukrainians nuclear weapons/ if the US has a high probability of being the victim of a nuclear attack? Would the US initiate a nuclear attack? Would we retaliate immediately if Russia used their nuclear weapons on Ukraine? Does the US truly not have any defense against ICBMs or does the average citizen just not know our full military capabilities?

I apologize upfront for my ignorance but I think I am too emotionally invested to look at things objectively. Please be kind and let me know if I should prep/what I can do/what you do to help with your anxiety around this topic.

I’ve read in numerous articles about Trump wanting to establish a missile defense system comparable to the Iron Dome, but what exactly would it consist of? Would it resemble something more along the lines of the Nike-X/Sentinel or SDI programs?

Am trying to work out the configuration of the new Russian one.

Trying to find info on this, was curious if it occurred before the ba of atmospheric tests?

Let’s say Russia detonates a “small” battlefield weapon tomorrow in Ukraine. Assuming this sets off a tit-for-tat escalation, how long are we likely talking between that first use and a full-on exchange between the Russian Federation and the USA? Hours? Days? Weeks? Assuming it does lead to that and no one backs down at any point along the chain.

How would it change if the target was a NATO facility in Eastern Europe instead?

My understanding is that the state of nuclear armament and readiness is essentially like the mob movie scenes, in the restaurant, with all guns drawn. One trigger pulled and everyone is firing. Everyone killing before being killed. In my opinion, it would be nice if a pot dropping in the kitchen wasn’t the trigger event.

With all of the early alert tech and satellite monitoring. Is there any strategic benefit for Russia, China, US, UK, or France to attempt a bolt out of the blue? Is it possible to decapitate a foe without a decapitation in return? My understanding is, no. Wouldn’t everyone be better off if we all have the best alert and detection possible? Why risk another 1983 event? Why should the US not help to improve Tundra?

If deterrence is the best hope, I would feel a lot better if we all had the best tech possible, and I can’t see any reason all superpowers can’t have open source tech for detection and monitoring.

PS. Yes, I am reading Jacobsen at the moment. I am reading it more as fiction and I know the scenario and much of the premises is flawed, but it still raises questions.

Hello there, i am Chilean, and if you know, its a long country in the end of the world, so we are told time and time again that no direct nuclear wepons harm is comming our way, obviusly whe would suffer from nuclear fallout and stuff, but whe are not going to be vaporized at the begging, or so we are told. So i wanna know what is like for example be german or noruegan and today more than ever in the last 50 years have the fear of your country or city or town be reduced to cinder with all the people you know, i mean, i find it concerning and i live far far away, what are your toughts on everything that is going on right now about that, tkns.

I was curious how much inwards force (yes, I know force is a vector. I refer to "force" in this context as the scalar quantity that is pressure*surface area) is experienced by the secondary of thermonuclear weapons during implosion. I saw online that the total pressure (from radiation pressure, plasma pressure, and tamper ablation) in the W80 on the secondary is some 7200 TPa. I couldn't find the surface area of the secondary of the W80 online, so I did some rough calculations. Based on lithium-6 deuteride's specific energy of 210 gigajoules per gram, I calculated there to have been ~3 kg of lithium deuteride in order to have produced the 150 kt yield of the W80. Ofc not 100% of the lithium deuteride undergoes fusion in a bomb, and not 100% of the yield comes from fusion. I assumed they canceled out for the purpose of my calculations. 3 kg of lithium deuteride at 0.82 g*cm^-3 would equate to ~3660 cm^3 in volume, or a sphere of ~9.6 cm in radius. The surface area would then be ~1200 cm^2. Obviously, these calculations are very rough, and yield and volume due to the fission, the tamper, and other components are not accounted for and simply dismissed as cancelling out. A radius of around 10 cm (diameter of 20 cm) seems roughly right, at least compared to the dimensions of the W80 and others' speculative diagrams of the W80.

Anyway, with that surface area, I calculated the total inwards force to be 720 trillion newtons, or the weight of 73 billion tons.

Just thought it'd be something cool I could share. If anybody has suggestions on how to fix up my calculations a bit more, or perhaps some extra information I missed out on, that would be appreciated.

I've been reading about the Russian R-36 recently. It has potentially ten MIRVs of around 800 kt each. I know they aren't as numerous as Minuteman IIIs, but eight Mt or more as opposed to 350 or 475 kt per missile is quite a difference.

I suppose my question is: are arms reduction/limitation treaties based on total tonnage, tonnage vs range, some other metric, or just strategy? Does the US use a small missile with a single warhead because it makes up for it in other aspects (SLBMs perhaps), or is it just that this setup better suits their operational doctrine?

I'm assuming the R-36 is allowed such a large payload because it represents a small percentage of the total force, and that overall, each side has roughly equivalent numbers of deployed, deliverable warheads.

I know its sort of a serious or sketchy subject, since the idea is mutually assured destruction, and therefore the risk of nuclear war occuring in the first place is quite slim. However, i was only wondering do any countrys have some sort of strategy, how they could have some level of upperhand in an active nuclear conflict? Or is it just go through the processes of launching the nukes and thats it?

Been toying around with this question for a while and thought I'd get some outside opinions.

Let's take a hypothetical conventional war between Russia and NATO. During the course of the war, Russia uses several nuclear weapons. These would most likely be small, tactical, and done as a coercive measure to force negotiations.

The question is, what should and/or would be the Western response to such an attack?

Edit for clarity: The specific scenario I'm considering is a hypothetical war over the Baltics. Russia at that point would have captured territory, and would be seeking to discourage NATO counterattack and secure a fait accompli. TNWs would be used, perhaps on NATO formations or supply lines. Scenario comes in part from a DGAP report (section 2.2.3).

I'm aware the scenario is far-fetched realistically, the main question I'm getting at is how to respond to TNW use. How much do you escalate, if at all?

So I'm wondering what would be some of the safest states to live in, in the USA if there ends up being a Nuclear Attack? Like what States would the Government try it's best to defend with the Missile defense systems? Guessing states that have nukes and Oklahoma being the State/hub used to distribute oil, but what other area's do you all think would be considered "protect at all costs"?

Real question! "What States/Locations would the Government try it's best to defend with the Missile defense systems if possible?" this would be the safest place

I'm interested in y'alls thoughts on this:

Imagine a spot with three nuclear targets, 10, 20, and 30 miles from this location. Assume a 300 kt warhead detonated above each of the three targets at an altitude that would produce maximum damage.

Questions:

1. Would the shockwaves travel at the same velocity as sound waves (which travel at ~0.2 miles per second), and when they did arrive, would they do much more than rattle windows? Would a "wind" accompany them, and if so, how noticeable would it be . Assume a mix of forest and water between the location and the targets.

2. Would audible sound from the detonations actually arrive at the location? When Mount St. Helens erupted during May 1980, locations within 50 miles of the eruption did not hear the mountain erupt, whereas locations hundreds of miles away could hear it. Granted, the scenarios are different inasmuch as at MSH, the explosion was massive and was directed upward and for an airburst detonation, I'd have to imagine that forces would be distributed more equally.

Thank you in advance.