![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "leadfoot" wrote in message news ![]() You're making an assumption that might not be true. The sortie in question might not come back to that base. A Post-Strike Recovery Base might not be home but a place that might have some chance of still being in existence such as a bare bones strip somewhere. Would the speed of the aircraft be a factor? Harder to turn around a mach 2 B-58 isn't it? In the early 70's I heard the assumption was that every runway that could support a B-52 in the US would be hit with a nuke. Tex Houston Actually it was assumed that every runway that could support loaded and dispersed B-52's would be hit by a nuke. Most if not all would probably receive additional nukes at varying distances/altitudes from these runways in attempts to destroy any B-52' that had managed to take off. It is late at night and I can't sleep so here are a few thoughts I recall from discussions at the time. As an example this is how the war would have probably been fought in the 1980's. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Preliminary attacks would be made against military satellites by ground based laser and "Killer" satellites. (This may or may not have been perceived as leading to nuclear war). Most likely the Soviets would have launched a co-ordnated attack by all their forces starting with a preemptive strike of over 1,000 missiles carrying 5,000+ warheads. First strikes (1st wave) from SLBM (+5/15 min) off our coast, were assumed to target Command/Control with multiple upper atmosphere explosions (EMP) and any missile fields (Arkansas) or bomber runways within their range, and patterns around these runways to destroy any bombers already in the air. Sub launched cruise missiles (+15 min) would have been targeted at near coastal military facilities, and infrastructure, such as harbors, bridges, and transportation facilities. First strikes (2d wave) from land based ICBM's (+20min) were assumed to target all missile fields, and all runways to include hitting with ground burst to maximize the destruction and prevent farther use. Follow on strikes (3d wave) from the remaining ICBM's (+20/40min) were assumed to target and destroy any remaining military infrastructure, air/ground burst attacking cities and any other remaining targets. By this time it can be assumed that all of the Soviet and US, ICBM's and bombers have been launched. The US is now launching most of its remaining significant SLBM's, and the Soviets are launching the remaining ICBM's and any reloaded missiles they have. At +60min the strategic portion of the nuclear war is over. The use of tactical weapons at sea and wherever there are land battles will continue until the combatants either run out of tactical nukes or targets. It should be assumed that every country that had a deliverable nuke weapon used them against someone rather than loose them. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
N. Korea's Nuclear Weapon Test, Possible 'dud', 1 Kiloton or less ? | AirRaid | Naval Aviation | 0 | October 9th 06 10:15 PM |
Iran's nuclear program | Thelasian | Military Aviation | 107 | August 31st 04 06:35 AM |
What is missile defense? An expensive fraud Bush needs Poland as a future nuclear battlefield | Paul J. Adam | Military Aviation | 1 | August 9th 04 08:29 PM |
Czechoslovak nuclear weapons? Warszaw Pact War Plans ( The Effects of a Global Thermonuclear War ...) | Matt Wiser | Military Aviation | 25 | January 17th 04 02:18 PM |
Warszaw Pact War Plans ( The Effects of a Global Thermonuclear War ...) | Matt Wiser | Military Aviation | 0 | December 7th 03 08:20 PM |