[throw5323446]

> Nuclear War: A Scenario

I read the wikipedia article, but I don't see how this scenario seems probable, it notes the nukes have to pass by russia to strike North Korea, thus creating the world war.

But the US has nuclear subs with nuclear wardheads! Most likely there is one close to NK and then no need to pass over russia...

[credit_guy]

It's an awful book. In the scenario, the US does launch SLBMs from a submarine close to North Korea, and they hit in minutes. But for some reason the author thought that's is plausible that the US would also launch 50 land based ICBMs. Why?

The author's technical expertise is very limited. She thinks that satellites fall out of the sky if their electronics are destroyed by an EMP attack. There are many other mistakes, you are better off skipping this book.

[jnurmine]

No, it's a good book.

They launch 50 land-based ICBMs because:

1. They expect the attack to continue.

2. The ICBM silos are in static locations.

3. Not using the ICBMs in time removes the possibility to use them at all, because the enemy, knowing where they are, will obviously destroy them. Therefore: "use it or lose it".

4. Because of #1, #2 and #3 there is a a limited time to launch a counter-attack at all using the land-based ICBMs.

5. Because the chairman of the JSC is pushing hard for strike option Charlie, which the president ultimately caves in to.

As for the EMP and satellites, that part comes from an interviews with Yago and Pry as well as Pry's book. Satellites certainly won't drop from the skies like burning seagulls, but if they cannot course correct because their electronics are fried, they will fall back into the atmosphere and burn much sooner than otherwise.

Edit: I can't count to 5.

[edanm]

> It's an awful book. In the scenario, the US does launch SLBMs from a submarine close to North Korea, and they hit in minutes. But for some reason the author thought that's is plausible that the US would also launch 50 land based ICBMs. Why?

See my other comment, but to summarize - because they worry that an incoming attack would destroy the land-based ICBMs before they have a chance to launch them, taking out one third of the Nuclear Triad.

I don't think this was the book making up stories - the book is half fiction, half interviews with actual people who worked on these plans and gave inside info on them. This unfortunately appears to be a realistic scenario.

[edanm]

Look into the "Nuclear Triad". The US has three ways to fight back against a nuclear attack - land-based ICBMs, bombers, and submarines.

It is unknown how the US would react to a missile launched from NK, but for various reasons, it is likely to respond with a massive counter-attack. This is partially for deterrence (the whole idea behind the MAD doctrine), and partially for fear that if ICBMs are not launched right away, they could be deactivated by an incoming first strike.

Indeed, in the scenario laid out in the book (Spoiler Warning), after launching an ICBM, NK also launches missiles from a submarine that take out various parts of the US in minutes, far faster than the ~25 minutes for the ICBMs to get to the US from NK. Had the ICBMs not been launched before, it is probable they would be destroyed, taking out one leg of the "triad".