About when did a US/CCCP war become suicidal?

In article , Owe Jessen
wrote:

Am Fri, 27 Feb 2004 03:15:43 GMT, schrieb Fred J. McCall
:

Owe Jessen wrote:

:Could you give in some applications for the SADM? ISTR from childhood
80s) that there were plans to destroy a lot of bridges and so on with
:atomic bombs. Why was it thought necessary to use those instead of
:conventional explosives? Aside from the fact that using nuclear
:weopons just for the fun in a friendly country might not be overly
opular there.

Because wiring a modern bridge with sufficient explosives to bring it
down is not a quick job. Failure to manage this cost the Germans
dearly in WWII.

Either we wire them up and leave them that way in peacetime (not real
safe) or you take them down fast with nukes in wartime.

I guess the folks living next to the bridges were thrilled. Or was the
plan to use it only, if nuclear weapons were allready being used?

It probably would have been used only after the nuclear threshold had
been crossed, but that might not mean much to the people near the
bridge. The smaller ADMs were definitely in the subkiloton range.
Conventional bombing before precision-guided weapons, even with such
advanced things as Barnes Wallace's earthquake bombs, still needed
substantial subkiloton yields.

If the high explosive, in the multi-ton range, were prepositioned in the
bridge, even without primers, is that going to comfort the nearby
residents?

The reality is that it takes a substantial explosive force to take down
a major bridge or mountain road cut.

Owe Jessen wrote:

:Am Fri, 27 Feb 2004 03:15:43 GMT, schrieb Fred J. McCall
:
:
:Owe Jessen wrote:
:
::Could you give in some applications for the SADM? ISTR from childhood
:80s) that there were plans to destroy a lot of bridges and so on with
::atomic bombs. Why was it thought necessary to use those instead of
::conventional explosives? Aside from the fact that using nuclear
::weopons just for the fun in a friendly country might not be overly
:opular there.
:
:Because wiring a modern bridge with sufficient explosives to bring it
:down is not a quick job. Failure to manage this cost the Germans
:dearly in WWII.
:
:Either we wire them up and leave them that way in peacetime (not real
:safe) or you take them down fast with nukes in wartime.
:
:I guess the folks living next to the bridges were thrilled. Or was the
lan to use it only, if nuclear weapons were allready being used?

You might want to look at the yield of something like SADM. We're
hardly talking about a galaxy-shaking cataclysm here.

--
"Rule Number One for Slayers - Don't die."
-- Buffy, the Vampire Slayer

Howard Berkowitz wrote:

:It probably would have been used only after the nuclear threshold had
:been crossed, but that might not mean much to the people near the
:bridge.

I think I disagree with Howard. The point of using these things was
so that you didn't have to unleash tactical nukes on big Soviet tank
formations to stop them. You could just blow all the bridges quickly
and slow them down that way.

By definition, *some* nuclear threshold would have been crossed at
about the time the first one went off, but since these things would be
targeted against infrastructure in advance of the Soviets, it would be
rather difficult for them to claim them as justification for crossing
the nuclear threshold themselves.

They were also another good reason why we declined to sign a 'no first
use' policy. We intended to use these things first, because blowing
all the bridges made good tactical sense.

Unless you're practically living on the bridge, these things aren't
really a problem for neighbors. Don't overestimate effects just
because the bugaboo word 'nuclear' (actually 'atomic') is involved.
They'd have a much bigger problem from that Guards tank regiment going
through their carrot patch if the bridge was left up.

--
"Rule Number One for Slayers - Don't die."
-- Buffy, the Vampire Slayer

In article ,
wrote:

Howard Berkowitz wrote:

:It probably would have been used only after the nuclear threshold had
:been crossed, but that might not mean much to the people near the
:bridge.

I think I disagree with Howard. The point of using these things was
so that you didn't have to unleash tactical nukes on big Soviet tank
formations to stop them. You could just blow all the bridges quickly
and slow them down that way.

It's hard to say. _Soviet Military Strategy_, written under the
direction of Marshal Sokolovsky and originally translated by the RAND
Corporation [a summary available at
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/a...976/may-jun/wh
iting.html] strongly suggests, along with other sources, that the
Soviets planned first use of theater nuclear weapons in a large-scale
attack on Western Europe. As you know, the Soviet decision whether or
not to strike first has been debated in many future predictions as well
as staff studies. See both volumes of Sir John Hackett's _The Third
World War_ for scenarios with and without Soviet nuclear first use.

I would agree, Fred, that the first NATO use of nuclear weapons indeed
might be to take out chokepoints such as bridges and mountain passes.
Perhaps I didn't make it clear that when I spoke of crossing the nuclear
threshold, I believe that threshold would first have been crossed by the
Warsaw Pact, principally to isolate the battlefield and hard-kill air
support and C3I in preparation for the major ground attack.


By definition, *some* nuclear threshold would have been crossed at
about the time the first one went off, but since these things would be
targeted against infrastructure in advance of the Soviets, it would be
rather difficult for them to claim them as justification for crossing
the nuclear threshold themselves.

They were also another good reason why we declined to sign a 'no first
use' policy. We intended to use these things first, because blowing
all the bridges made good tactical sense.

Unless you're practically living on the bridge, these things aren't
really a problem for neighbors. Don't overestimate effects just
because the bugaboo word 'nuclear' (actually 'atomic') is involved.
They'd have a much bigger problem from that Guards tank regiment going
through their carrot patch if the bridge was left up.

"Tom Adams" wrote
(Peter Stickney) wrote

Size and Weight. Nobody was capable of putting a 30-40 ton warhead of
that size at those heights. Well, that, and atmospheric attenuation -
all the prompt stuff, and the heat, gets absobed pretty quickly by the
Atmosphere,

Less than half the radiant energy of the sun is absorbed.

From Glassstone (10.29), "stopping altitude" is the altitude below which
there is no significant ionizing effect for radiation sourced from above.
From table 10.29, the most penetrating prompt ionizing radiation (gamma and
neutrons) stop at 15 miles altitude.

For the thermal pulse, most of the thermal effects from a thermonuclear
weapon are sourced from X-ray heated air. For an exo-atmospheric detonation,
the thermal source region will be at approximately 270Kfeet altitude
(7.91-92). Again from Glassstone "In fact for bursts at altitudes exceeding
some 330,000 feet (63 minles) the thermal radiation from a nuclear explosion
even in the megaton range is essentially ineffective so far as skin burns,
ignitition etc..."

"Owe Jessen" wrote in message
...
Am Fri, 27 Feb 2004 03:15:43 GMT, schrieb Fred J. McCall
:

Owe Jessen wrote:

:Could you give in some applications for the SADM? ISTR from childhood
80s) that there were plans to destroy a lot of bridges and so on with
:atomic bombs. Why was it thought necessary to use those instead of
:conventional explosives? Aside from the fact that using nuclear
:weopons just for the fun in a friendly country might not be overly
opular there.

Because wiring a modern bridge with sufficient explosives to bring it
down is not a quick job. Failure to manage this cost the Germans
dearly in WWII.

Either we wire them up and leave them that way in peacetime (not real
safe) or you take them down fast with nukes in wartime.

I guess the folks living next to the bridges were thrilled. Or was the
plan to use it only, if nuclear weapons were allready being used?

Bridges were not a very common target for SADM. In point of fact, the
earlier poster almost had it right when he mentioned the "already wired up"
bit in reference to bridges. Most of the bridges and large overpasses in
West Germany were "prechambered" for demolition; that meant that there were
cavities incorporated into the structure (usually with manhole access).
Nearby would be a reinforced concrete magazine/bunker where the charges were
stored--usually "cheese charges", the name coming from the fact that they
resembled large wheels of cheese. Conduits were included, with pull-through
lead lines used for pulling the det cord initiations system to the chamber.
In the event of war, these reserve demolition targets would be prepared by
German personnel from the WBK (a quasi-military structured German civil
service organization, IIRC). These same folks also were responsible for
other obstacle systems; they had some really neat steel I-beam
anti-vehicular obstacles that featured pre-installed receptacles in the
roadway. Remove the cover, slide the beam down, and a pin locked it into
place such that you'd have to use explosives (or spend a lot of time with a
cutting torch) to remove it.

SADM would have been used by two different organizations--the regular US
Army engineer atomic demolition munitions (ADM) companies, usually supported
by a corps level combat engineer battalion, or the Special Forces, who also
had some ADM capabilities and (reportedly) targets. You used it when you had
to take out a target that was just too cumbersome to use conventional
explosives on. Things like dropping a big chunk of highway constructed in a
side-hill cut, or against your own airfields before they were overrun as a
denial measure, or possibly even a dam. The only bridges that would have
been likely SADM reserve targets would have been something like very large
suspension bridges (large suspension bridges are a real bear to try and
destroy with conventional demo). As a nuclear weapon, use of SADM could only
occur after weapons release was granted from the NCA--it had a PAL device to
prevent unauthorized use. No code for the PAL, and the weapon would crunch
itself so that it would not be usable.

The folks who lived next to ADM targets likely never knew it. The engineers
who served in the few ADM companies we had in Europe actually received a
civilian clothing allowance so that they could recon and update their target
folders without being too obvious. I had an E-5 who reclassified from ADM
(MOS 12E) to straight combat engineer (12B) back when they were drawing down
the ADM companies in the mid-eighties and was assigned to my platoon--his
biggest bitch was that he had lost his civilian clothing allowance!

Brooks


Owe
--
My from-adress is valid and being read.
www.owejessen.de

"Howard Berkowitz" wrote in message
...
In article , Owe Jessen
wrote:

Am Fri, 27 Feb 2004 03:15:43 GMT, schrieb Fred J. McCall
:

Owe Jessen wrote:

:Could you give in some applications for the SADM? ISTR from childhood
80s) that there were plans to destroy a lot of bridges and so on with
:atomic bombs. Why was it thought necessary to use those instead of
:conventional explosives? Aside from the fact that using nuclear
:weopons just for the fun in a friendly country might not be overly
opular there.

Because wiring a modern bridge with sufficient explosives to bring it
down is not a quick job. Failure to manage this cost the Germans
dearly in WWII.

Either we wire them up and leave them that way in peacetime (not real
safe) or you take them down fast with nukes in wartime.

I guess the folks living next to the bridges were thrilled. Or was the
plan to use it only, if nuclear weapons were allready being used?

It probably would have been used only after the nuclear threshold had
been crossed, but that might not mean much to the people near the
bridge. The smaller ADMs were definitely in the subkiloton range.
Conventional bombing before precision-guided weapons, even with such
advanced things as Barnes Wallace's earthquake bombs, still needed
substantial subkiloton yields.

The vast majority of bridges were prechambered and would have been dropped
with conventional charges. ADM's would only have been used on the
largest/nastiest of possible targets.


If the high explosive, in the multi-ton range, were prepositioned in the
bridge, even without primers, is that going to comfort the nearby
residents?

Happened all the time, with boosters and primers. Drive through germany and
look at the terrain near large bridges and you'll likely find the old
magazine bunkers where the charges for the prechambers were stored.


The reality is that it takes a substantial explosive force to take down
a major bridge or mountain road cut.

The road cut, yes. As to bridges, with prechambers you can drop anything
built with the possible exception of large suspension structures. Without
prechambers you have to use a bit more demo material, and the prep time
climbs, but you can still drop the vast majority of structures, or a portion
thereof (one span and one set of piers is all it usually required).

Brooks

Howard Berkowitz wrote:

:I would agree, Fred, that the first NATO use of nuclear weapons indeed
:might be to take out chokepoints such as bridges and mountain passes.
:Perhaps I didn't make it clear that when I spoke of crossing the nuclear
:threshold, I believe that threshold would first have been crossed by the
:Warsaw Pact, principally to isolate the battlefield and hard-kill air
:support and C3I in preparation for the major ground attack.

I always considered that they'd paste such things with persistent
chemicals, instead. Kill all the depots that way. While we sometimes
claim that we would go nuclear in the face of a chemical attack, would
we really have done it?

I'm unconvinced we would have done so against the Soviet Union.

--
"Rule Number One for Slayers - Don't die."
-- Buffy, the Vampire Slayer

In article ,
Fred J. McCall wrote:

I always considered that they'd paste such things with persistent
chemicals, instead. Kill all the depots that way. While we sometimes
claim that we would go nuclear in the face of a chemical attack, would
we really have done it?

I'm unconvinced we would have done so against the Soviet Union.

If the USSR was into the realm of dropping planeloads of chemicals on
depots and such, it's hard to imagine that the war wouldn't have crossed
into the "screw 'em, what have we got ready to launch?" phase.

They built tactical nukes for a *reason*, you know.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"Kevin Brooks" wrote:

(large suspension bridges are a real bear to try and
destroy with conventional demo)

Seems to me that a largish FLSC (Flexible Linear Shaped Charge) would
do to sever one or both of the main suspension lines.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.