Nuts and Bolts of Nuclear War (split from Ukraine Reaction thread)

[Copernicus]

Why do people persist in the bizarre assumption that a nuclear war would target civilian population centres?

Population centers contain the infrastructure that manufactures military hardware and allow a country to conduct warfare. Hence, they are military targets. Nuclear warheads make city-sized holes in the earth cause damage that leads to equal or larger numbers of deaths among those that survive the initial blast. Moreover, Russia does not have a good record on being squeamish about obliterating civilian population centers, so why would you assume they would be careful to just target military facilities?

Anyway, there is a vast literature on the subject, and it is generally considered a bizarre assumption that civilization would survive a nuclear war. I'm not sure how much you have been exposed to the humanitarian impact of a nuclear war. For example, have you looked at the impact of just the two little atomic bombs that wiped out Japanese cities? Nowadays, we have lots more warheads with bigger yields.

Here is just one list of the potential effects of a nuclear holocaust:

Humanitarian impacts and risks of use of nuclear weapons​

An excerpt from just one of the items in their report:

5. In 2013 and 2014, three international conferences were organized by the governments of Norway, Mexico and Austria to comprehensively assess existing knowledge of the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons.[5] The evidence presented at the three conferences demonstrated inter alia the following:

• A nuclear weapon detonation in or near a populated area would – as a result of the blast wave, intense heat, and radiation and radioactive fallout – cause massive death and destruction, trigger large-scale displacement[6] and cause long-term harm to human health and well-being, as well as long-term damage to the environment, infrastructure, socioeconomic development and social order.[7]
• Modern environmental modelling techniques demonstrates that even a “small-scale” use of some 100 nuclear weapons against urban targets would, in addition to spreading radiation around the world, lead to a cooling of the atmosphere, shorter growing seasons, food shortages and a global famine.[8]
• The effects of a nuclear weapon detonation, notably the radioactive fallout carried downwind, cannot be contained within national borders.[9]
• The scale of destruction and contamination after a nuclear detonation in or near a populated area could cause profound social and political disruption as it would take several decades to reconstruct infrastructure and regenerate economic activities, trade, communications, health-care facilities and schools.[10]
• No state or international body could address, in an appropriate manner, the immediate humanitarian emergency nor the long-term consequences of a nuclear weapon detonation in a populated area, nor provide appropriate assistance to those affected. Owing to the massive suffering and destruction caused by a nuclear detonation, it would probably not be possible to establish such capacities, even if attempted, although coordinated preparedness may, nevertheless, be useful in mitigating the effects of an event involving the explosion of an improvised nuclear device.[11]
• Notably, owing to the long-lasting effects of exposure to ionizing radiation, the use or testing of nuclear weapons has, in several parts of the world, left a legacy of serious health and environmental consequences[12] that disproportionally affect women and children.[13]

 

[bilby]

For example, have you looked at the impact of just the two little atomic bombs that wiped out Japanese cities?

Yes, I have.

They were similar to the impact of the firebombing of other Japanese cities.

The most significant tactical difference is that a single aircraft could do the work that previously required about a thousand.

Strategically, the atomic weapons were incredibly expensive. The cost per enemy casualty (even given the generous assumption that all of the victims qualified as 'enemies') made them easily the most expensive weapons deployed up to that date.

Politically and diplomatically, they were a huge success, in that they almost certainly ended the war, and absolutely certainly cowed the Soviet Union to the diplomatic benefit (at least until the Soviets got their own bomb) of the USA, Britain, and France.

Have you looked at the impact of conventional bombing on cities in WWII?

That nuclear bombs are horrific isn't really a question. But the assertion that they are uniquely or exceptionally horrific is highly dubious. Nuclear weapons are just a particularly expensive, tactically easy, and diplomatically thorny way of achieving something that humanity had already demonstrated the ability to do before they were invented: Kill lots of people and destroy the stuff they built.

They're different in many ways, but it's all quantitative, or psychological. They're qualitatively not different from any other weapons.

 

[Copernicus]

For example, have you looked at the impact of just the two little atomic bombs that wiped out Japanese cities?

Yes, I have.

They were similar to the impact of the firebombing of other Japanese cities.

The most significant tactical difference is that a single aircraft could do the work that previously required about a thousand.

Strategically, the atomic weapons were incredibly expensive. The cost per enemy casualty (even given the generous assumption that all of the victims qualified as 'enemies') made them easily the most expensive weapons deployed up to that date.

Politically and diplomatically, they were a huge success, in that they almost certainly ended the war, and absolutely certainly cowed the Soviet Union to the diplomatic benefit (at least until the Soviets got their own bomb) of the USA, Britain, and France.

Have you looked at the impact of conventional bombing on cities in WWII?

That nuclear bombs are horrific isn't really a question. But the assertion that they are uniquely or exceptionally horrific is highly dubious. Nuclear weapons are just a particularly expensive, tactically easy, and diplomatically thorny way of achieving something that humanity had already demonstrated the ability to do before they were invented: Kill lots of people and destroy the stuff they built.

They're different in many ways, but it's all quantitative, or psychological. They're qualitatively not different from any other weapons.

Interesting reply. You spent the whole time looking at anything but the effect on human beings, which, of course, is the first and most important impact that one needs to consider, especially considering the effects of atomic weapons on the environment and the impact on survivors of the initial strike. You considered their cost, tactical effectiveness, impact on winning the war, impact on the Soviet Union and other nations (which were motivated to build their own nuclear arsenals), and tried to equate them with conventional weapons (minus, of course, the differences in impact on the environment). In the second to the last paragraph, you briefly concede that they are "horrific" but minimize how horrific they are. You don't mention anything about the impact on victims. Nothing about radiation sickness and the cost of caring for the injuries, many of which were truly horrific, if you cared to actually look at them. I would suggest that you give more thought to the human cost, because that is exactly the problem with a global nuclear war. There is a reason why there was a ban on testing those weapons above ground, not a ban on testing the weapons that were used to incinerate Dresden. Surely you understand why.

A global nuclear exchange would include a great many population centers, not just two rather small cities. That's why our policy on nuclear defense is called "Mutually Assured Destruction". The strategy is to deter people from using nuclear weapons, because they are a recipe for global suicide. Nobody really seriously thinks that a nuclear war is going to be anything like as mild as WWII in terms of destructive effects on human lives. I don't understand why you and others here seem to think it is almost a good idea to risk it.

Images of injuries from just Hiroshima

Hiroshima and Nagasaki: The Long Term Health Effects​

 

[bilby]

Interesting reply. You spent the whole time looking at anything but the effect on human beings

Literally every part of my reply was about the effect on human beings.

What you appear to object to is my failure to be emotional rather than analytical.

Which has nothing to do with nuclear (or for that matter conventional) weapons.

That the use of ANY weapon against a person is horrific IMO goes without saying; But that doesn't mean it's not something I think about - it just isn't relevant to the current discussion, because it's not something that distinguishes nuclear weapons from other weapons.

People burned to death by conventional weapons don't feel any better about their fate than those incinerated by nuclear weapons.

 

[Politesse]

For example, have you looked at the impact of just the two little atomic bombs that wiped out Japanese cities?

Yes, I have.

They were similar to the impact of the firebombing of other Japanese cities.

The most significant tactical difference is that a single aircraft could do the work that previously required about a thousand.

Strategically, the atomic weapons were incredibly expensive. The cost per enemy casualty (even given the generous assumption that all of the victims qualified as 'enemies') made them easily the most expensive weapons deployed up to that date.

Politically and diplomatically, they were a huge success, in that they almost certainly ended the war, and absolutely certainly cowed the Soviet Union to the diplomatic benefit (at least until the Soviets got their own bomb) of the USA, Britain, and France.

Have you looked at the impact of conventional bombing on cities in WWII?

That nuclear bombs are horrific isn't really a question. But the assertion that they are uniquely or exceptionally horrific is highly dubious. Nuclear weapons are just a particularly expensive, tactically easy, and diplomatically thorny way of achieving something that humanity had already demonstrated the ability to do before they were invented: Kill lots of people and destroy the stuff they built.

They're different in many ways, but it's all quantitative, or psychological. They're qualitatively not different from any other weapons.

You seem to assume that the readers of the post approve of the "firebombing of other cities" and see this as a mere tactical question rather than a moral issue. The destruction of an entire city, civilian and military districts alike, is a moral travesty no matter what tools you use to accomplish it. But unlike smaller arms, that is the only way that nuclear bombs work: they destroy everything, and they make it easy to do so quickly with the press of a button. This is not a good thing in any way.

You speak so casually about the diplomatic benefits of state terrorism and horrific war crimes, but what about the diplomatic costs? Do you think Australia will be able to avoid the political karma of Nagasaki forever? You think East Asians have forgotten how glibly the Western powers destroyed two cities in minutes to end a war? You think that doesn't make our hegemony the greatest threat to their own, the first target in any future bid for global power? You only have five cities of size in your country. In a nuclear conflict, that's five cities, five bombs, and five hours, to kill or grievously injure more than half of the population. No one should have this power. But since this cannot be undone, at least no one should ever make light of its severity.

I see the tower of the Hornet every day I go into the city, and it's not a far walk to the coastal batteries left behind from that war. The Hornet saved your country from eventual naval invasion at Midway, and the batteries would have made a similar invasion of my city a severe challenge... in a conventional war. In a nuclear war, neither the Hornet nor the batteries would have made any difference whatsoever. One plane, that's all it would have taken. There is no upside to such warfare.

 

[Copernicus]

Interesting reply. You spent the whole time looking at anything but the effect on human beings

Literally every part of my reply was about the effect on human beings.

But not about the most important effect on human beings--their personal lives.

What you appear to object to is my failure to be emotional rather than analytical.

Nonsense. You are obviously emotional about what you write, as am I. And we are both analytical about what we are emotional about. One can be emotional and analytical at the same time. We just place different values on these matters, and I think that Politesse expressed that quite effectively in his comment on your post.

Which has nothing to do with nuclear (or for that matter conventional) weapons.

That the use of ANY weapon against a person is horrific IMO goes without saying; But that doesn't mean it's not something I think about - it just isn't relevant to the current discussion, because it's not something that distinguishes nuclear weapons from other weapons.

People burned to death by conventional weapons don't feel any better about their fate than those incinerated by nuclear weapons.

People who die are incapable of feeling anything, but you are right that it makes no difference one way or the other to those who die. You missed my references to the survivors, apparently. It is the living who suffer from radiation poisoning and take longer to die. Better to be incinerated in an instant than to live a slow, torturous wait for death. People who lose their homes, their loved ones, their access to food and health care--those are the survivors of a nuclear holocaust. But, of course, we all die at some point. I would just like the human race to become extinct a lot later than sooner. Forgive the emotion.

 

[bilby]

You seem to assume that the readers of the post approve of the "firebombing of other cities" and see this as a mere tactical question rather than a moral issue.

It's an historical fact that many people on all sides in WWII approved of the firebombing of enemy cities.

There's no moral issue in discussing what happened in the past, other than ensuring that our descriptions of events are as accurate as possible.

I presume that nobody on this board would approve of the firebombing of a city today.

But my point seems to be getting buried under misplaced outrage at my personal failings.

it remains true that destroying cities is always a bad thing, and gets no better or worse if the destruction is done using nuclear weapons.

 

[Copernicus]

it remains true that destroying cities is always a bad thing, and gets no better or worse if the destruction is done using nuclear weapons.

Only if you omit consideration of the aftereffects of nuclear, as opposed to other, weapons.

 

[bilby]

it remains true that destroying cities is always a bad thing, and gets no better or worse if the destruction is done using nuclear weapons.

Only if you omit consideration of the aftereffects of nuclear, as opposed to other, weapons.

The aftereffects of both are pretty similar.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

For example, have you looked at the impact of just the two little atomic bombs that wiped out Japanese cities?

Yes, I have.

They were similar to the impact of the firebombing of other Japanese cities.

The most significant tactical difference is that a single aircraft could do the work that previously required about a thousand.

More important--they dropped from 30,000' rather than coming low like the regular bombers. Thus they weren't exposed to AA fire. Japan was betting on making taking the country too bloody--but if we could blow them to bits from beyond their ability to shoot back that strategy went out the window.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In WWII firebombing by the Brits and Americans was a choice.

When Hitler switched to terror bombing to try and break the Brits including fire bombing 'Bomber' Harris head of the RAF wnated torespnd in kind. Initially Churchill opposed it but eventually acquiesced.

We fire bombed Japon and from the post war reports of Japanese survivors it was far more horrific than the nuclear bombs. Japm dosytibuted war production in population venters made of flimsy wodden structires.

We didn't really have much else we could do. The Japanese war production was too dispersed to be targeted directly. Thus all we could do is destroy the cities.

 

[bilby]

In WWII firebombing by the Brits and Americans was a choice.

When Hitler switched to terror bombing to try and break the Brits including fire bombing 'Bomber' Harris head of the RAF wnated torespnd in kind. Initially Churchill opposed it but eventually acquiesced.

We fire bombed Japon and from the post war reports of Japanese survivors it was far more horrific than the nuclear bombs. Japm dosytibuted war production in population venters made of flimsy wodden structires.

We didn't really have much else we could do. The Japanese war production was too dispersed to be targeted directly. Thus all we could do is destroy the cities.

Sure. But was it something we should have done? Did it help the war effort?

It's main effect seems to have been to boost morale - "See, we are getting revenge for the bad things they did!"

Strategic bombing doesn't appear to have been a particularly useful strategy. As you just said, Japanese war production was too dispersed to be targeted directly. So the effect of destroying cities on that war production was minimal. Killing the workers' families didn't make them less productive, it just made them more determined and motivated.

 

[Politesse]

There's no moral issue in discussing what happened in the past, other than ensuring that our descriptions of events are as accurate as possible.

That's just foolish. If you are incapable of learning anything from history, there's no point in discussing it at all. Nor is looking at history solely from one party's perspective "accurate" in any way. The experiences of that war immediately started eroding international approval of the targeting of civilians in war, to the point that even by the end of the war it was highly controversial, and was explicitly outlawed in International law not long after, which is why no parties today feel comfortable overtly defending the indiscriminate slaughter of non-combatants. Putin may kill civilians, he may even intend to kill civilians, but he cannot publically admit to targeting them, because public opinion does not rest well on those who do. And thank god for that.

I presume that nobody on this board would approve of the firebombing of a city today.

Then, the use of nuclear arms in warfare, an equivalent crime, should likewise be beyond consideration.

And I don't give a crap about your "personal failings". Unless one of those failings is that you firebombed a city, I'm responding to what you have written, not what you've done.

 

[steve_bank]

In WWII firebombing by the Brits and Americans was a choice.

When Hitler switched to terror bombing to try and break the Brits including fire bombing 'Bomber' Harris head of the RAF wnated torespnd in kind. Initially Churchill opposed it but eventually acquiesced.

We fire bombed Japon and from the post war reports of Japanese survivors it was far more horrific than the nuclear bombs. Japm dosytibuted war production in population venters made of flimsy wodden structires.

We didn't really have much else we could do. The Japanese war production was too dispersed to be targeted directly. Thus all we could do is destroy the cities.

I am not arguing the morality. I think the use of nuclear weapons was the right thing to do. That would be a debate on the history forum.

The fact that in the prosecution of a war there can be crimes, but war itself is not a crime says something. NATO is an attempt to outlaw war, at least among a group of historical antagonists. Russia was historicaly part of the long runing conflicts.

To me the only possible morality in a war is to end it as quickly as possible.

The Geneva Conventions came about in the context of 19th century warfare. I think it was also about making war palpable to people so they would fight.

Armies lined up against each other in clear uniforms. Civilians might be warned of a coming battle. In the Civil War people came out to watch battles. Professional armies honorably fighting wars to a set of rules.

By WWI with lomg range artillery, machine guns, and airplanes it was wholesale slaughter. Killing at long range. Chemical weapons.

 

[bilby]

That's just foolish.

Or perhaps you just completely missed my point.

Again.

Yes, destroying cities should be beyond consideration. But some (such as Putin) clearly do consider it.

The point I am trying (and evidently failing) to get across is that destroying a city with a nuclear bomb isn't particularly different from doing so with a thousand bomber raid, from the perspective of the people living there at the time.

The idea that nuclear weapons are uniquely awful is simply false. There are ways of achieving the same awfulness without nuclear weapons, and those ways were in fact implemented on a massive scale in living memory.

The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were war crimes; But they weren't worse than Tokyo. Indeed, as they were smaller than Tokyo, destroying Tokyo was the bigger crime.

 

[Jarhyn]

That's just foolish.

Or perhaps you just completely missed my point.

Again.

Yes, destroying cities should be beyond consideration. But some (such as Putin) clearly do consider it.

The point I am trying (and evidently failing) to get across is that destroying a city with a nuclear bomb isn't particularly different from doing so with a thousand bomber raid, from the perspective of the people living there at the time.

The idea that nuclear weapons are uniquely awful is simply false. There are ways of achieving the same awfulness without nuclear weapons, and those ways were in fact implemented on a massive scale in living memory.

The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were war crimes; But they weren't worse than Tokyo. Indeed, as they were smaller than Tokyo, destroying Tokyo was the bigger crime.

Nuclear weapons are worse because they are far more devastating and ubiquitously destructive.

If a nuke goes off over my city, that's almost a million zombies, the literal walking dead, in a slow, ugly processional spewing a wave of unrest and chaos in a wave as they migrate from the city in the days before they die of burns, exposure, and radiation.

It's a much worse outcome than from conventional weapons, as if it were even possible to deliver conventional weapons like that to the inner regions of a large continental mass in enough volume to be meaningfully destructive.

A single nuke destroys everything in a few miles radius, and send the living dead (watch Grave of the Fireflies some time?) to harangue the countryside with their last grasp. At least the survivors of conventional bombs can live and rebuild and help the people they find their way towards.

 

[bilby]

If a nuke goes off over my city, that's almost a million zombies, the literal walking dead, in a slow, ugly processional spewing a wave of unrest and chaos in a wave as they migrate from the city in the days before they die of burns, exposure, and radiation.

That's simply not true. If a nuke goes off over your city, most people die very quickly. Most of the survivors survive indefinitely. And a few people suffer severe injuries to which they later succumb. Which is also what happens if a thousand bomber raid destroys your city in a massive firestorm.

Radiation is a bit part player; The vast majority of people who are close enough to receive a lethal (or even a debilitating) dose of radiation will die from heat and/or blast effects long before they could suffer any radiation effects.

Radiation is not a complete non-issue; But it's not even close to being a significant issue, in the wider context of the fact that a fucking city just got fucking destroyed.

Anti-war propaganda films of the Cold War era are not great sources of factual information on the effects of nuclear weapons.

 

[Copernicus]

The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were war crimes; But they weren't worse than Tokyo. Indeed, as they were smaller than Tokyo, destroying Tokyo was the bigger crime.

Not true. The obliteration of Nagasaki alone killed more people than died in the fire bombing of Tokyo, but only half the deaths happened quickly. 70,000 killed immediately. 75,000 from aftereffects. About 100,000 died in the Tokyo massacre, but far more would have died if a nuclear bomb had been dropped on Tokyo. The aftereffects of the Tokyo firebombing did not continue to kill an equivalent number of people. You don't seem willing to consider the issue of radiation poisoning. It seems that you are just interested in numbers of people killed immediately by these atrocities and not the lingering deaths caused by the poisoned environment.

 

[Jarhyn]

If a nuke goes off over my city, that's almost a million zombies, the literal walking dead, in a slow, ugly processional spewing a wave of unrest and chaos in a wave as they migrate from the city in the days before they die of burns, exposure, and radiation.

That's simply not true. If a nuke goes off over your city, most people die very quickly. Most of the survivors survive indefinitely. And a few people suffer severe injuries to which they later succumb. Which is also what happens if a thousand bomber raid destroys your city in a massive firestorm.

Radiation is a bit part player; The vast majority of people who are close enough to receive a lethal (or even a debilitating) dose of radiation will die from heat and/or blast effects long before they could suffer any radiation effects.

Radiation is not a complete non-issue; But it's not even close to being a significant issue, in the wider context of the fact that a fucking city just got fucking destroyed.

Anti-war propaganda films of the Cold War era are not great sources of factual information on the effects of nuclear weapons.

Oh God no, they don't die very quickly. It can take days or even weeks or months to die from it. The dark smudges you see in pictures of past attacks are not "all that was left". They just cleaned the bodies up afterwards.

I recommend you watch Grave of the Fireflies, actually read the reports of what the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki wrote of what the aftermath was.

 

[marc]

I recommend you watch Grave of the Fireflies, actually read the reports of what the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki wrote of what the aftermath was.

Grave of the Fireflies is a great film depicting Japan during the firebombings. But for the effects of the nukes, Barefoot Gen deals a lot more directly with that.