NationStates Jolt Archive

It seems that these days, a lot of battles between various nations tend to devolve into huge missile spam contests, with the battles being resolved by who runs out of antimissiles first instead of any real tactics and strategy.

However, I got an idea from a post in the NS forum...

Would anyone be willing to accept very low yield nukes being used as a sort of area effect flak defense against missiles? The blast and pressure wave along with the radiation and thermal wave would be more than sufficient to screw many large numbers of missiles, while the detonation of the weapon far away would be enough to blast the missiles, but not your own positions.

I'm talking, of course, about 10 kiloton and lower yield weapons, and referring to
this calculator (http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Science/Nuke.html) for data on the areas affected.

Thoughts?

I don't consider it an RP ruiner, as you're using them on missiles and not on ships.

A nuke is a nuke is a nuke is a nuke.

It still gives EMP effect depending on height, still gives fallout, still is a nuclear weapon.

So, my nation, in order to follow its core strategy, would immediately reply in kind, if not in greater force, for a nation even thinking about using a nuke in warfare.

So basically, escalation. Great idea, but hey, gotta reply to the attack.

A low-yield nukes' EMP is not strong enough to really do much other than screw with radar returns for a while.

And of course the blast wouldn't do much to a ship at all unless it was practically sitting on the deck-- in nuke tests during the cold war, they detonated a 20 kt nuke about 500 meters from it, and it didn't sink for like two hours.

Edit: Also, fallout from such a small warhead is negligible, especially considering that the blast radius is miniscule and would be occuring over empty ocean many kilometers between two fleets.

It's the tihng that you've started using nukes. So your nation clearly has no problem in stepping up to bigger yields. You don't care if WMDs are thrown around.

SOrry to the loony who fired it in the first place, the tihng that launched it is getting fried ine ways to sunday.

It's the tihng that you've started using nukes. So your nation clearly has no problem in stepping up to bigger yields. You don't care if WMDs are thrown around.

SOrry to the loony who fired it in the first place, the tihng that launched it is getting fried ine ways to sunday.

I really don't think any nation would launch a full-scale ICBM empty-the-magazine counterstrike against someone just for using nuclear antimissiles that didn't even cause any casualties.

OOC: If somebody used tactical nukes in that defensive context over its own or neutral territory, and the other side responded by deploying strategic WMDs, the second nation would still be culpable in my view, as one of those relatively sane human beings.
If an argument turns to a slap in the face, the proper response is not a bullet to the skull.
This doesn't really matter to Walmington: our single experiment in guided surface-to-air missile technology blew up a rural tearoom.

I'm bumping this to see if opinions have changed yet or if someone with a more sane view on escalation is around.

To create an effective high-altitude barrage, you'd want to use warheads of at least 1MT in size. To get a solid EMP effect, detonation altitude would need to be over 20km.

And no, I disagree utterly with the CW that says that it would be unacceptable escalation to use a nuke in this fashion. You're talking about anti-missile use, right? How do you know what's on those incoming missiles? You don't. You have to presume that they're nukes, in which case this is not first use at all, but a defencive response.

(Oh, and lest someone say, "But we always tell our enemies that the missile strike is conventional," I ask the obvious question: and you expect your enemies to believe you?!?)

The US military designed missiles for something similar....I know the US had several of its large cities protected by NIKE missiles which were designed to attack large Soviet bomber formations before they could drop their payload. Of course this was shortly before ICBM's were created :)

OOC: I use an eight-point (plus one) artillery compass rose of linear guns to accelerate Pure Fusion warheads for Air Defense. No fallout, clean burning, and variable in yield.

This system is called MADAE, and it ended many wars in my early days on the forum.

A nuke is a nuke is a nuke is a nuke.

It still gives EMP effect depending on height, still gives fallout, still is a nuclear weapon.

So, my nation, in order to follow its core strategy, would immediately reply in kind, if not in greater force, for a nation even thinking about using a nuke in warfare.

So basically, escalation. Great idea, but hey, gotta reply to the attack.

Exactly Samtonia. It gives off EMP and radiation. It's not a new idea to use nuclear armed SAMs to defeat large waves of incoming missiles or bombers, bombers IRL. Many US & Russian SAMs were armed with nuclear warheads, the goal being to shoot them into bomber formations to take them all out.

Albeit IRL you don't have to worry about 10,000 cruise missiles, it could have similar effects. Keep in mind though that if the missiles are supersonic they are moving very fast so you want to have a good calculator for leading them. If they are subsonic, they are still moving very fast, 600 mph plus so you still have to lead them a little.

Exactly Samtonia. It gives off EMP and radiation. It's not a new idea to use nuclear armed SAMs to defeat large waves of incoming missiles or bombers, bombers IRL. Many US & Russian SAMs were armed with nuclear warheads, the goal being to shoot them into bomber formations to take them all out.

Albeit IRL you don't have to worry about 10,000 cruise missiles, it could have similar effects. Keep in mind though that if the missiles are supersonic they are moving very fast so you want to have a good calculator for leading them. If they are subsonic, they are still moving very fast, 600 mph plus so you still have to lead them a little.

Yeah, but such a thing is well within the capabilities of even real-world antimissile systems. Just requires a software change.

Sure, you can do that if you like, but if I know about it the gloves are obviously off, which means you can expect me to tip all the missiles I'm launching with nuclear warheads - and from there is just goes on. The fact is that, once one side's played the first nuclear card, the other side will follow in kind, and probably slightly greater. After all, if you're using nuclear SAMs and nuclear AShMs, why not use battlefield nuclear-capable rockets as well? Then the instigator realises "well, I may as well use them to strike at the enemy's rear," and so on and so forth. All this "limited nuclear war" stuff is simple nonsense; human nature and the imperatives of war will ensure that, after a nuclear first use, the nuclear weapon use escalates. In such a situation as you describe, my own doctrine is to grant release authority on my own nuclear weapons to all battlefield commanders for whatever purpose they see fit. A slap in the face doesn't merit a bullet, agreed. But if you slap me and I knock out your teeth, you shouldn't be surprised.

Yeah, but such a thing is well within the capabilities of even real-world antimissile systems. Just requires a software change.

Naturally, that's the pointed I wanted to raise. You're going to have to make it so that the software incorporates the lead of the missiles. This would require getting the speed of the incomming missiles with enough time to react, hence early detection.

I think low yield nukes would be perfectly acceptable for anti-missile defence, I myself have a number of nukes (never used though) for naval defence that would blast enemy battlegroups, more a last ditch type of system in the event the navy is wiped out or largely incapacitated though, and not a standard defence option.

10Kt is prety big even for this use, the old U.S. Genie nuclear anti air missile only yielded 1.5Kt, my Banth Tactical air defense missiles yield 2 Kt, really unless you plan on stopping an full barrage of multiple heavy arsenal ships, any yield greater than 4 Kt is proably overkill, and with such a small yield falout and corrolary radiation is virtually nil. I see no problem with using very low yield Nuclear weapons as anti air missiles over your own or neutral terrirtory, but use one over MY territory and you've initiated a reciprocal nuclear strike. so, As a defensive weapon I wouldn't go into WMD escalation but once it goes offnsive I'll blow you out of the water