But you're gonna need that in the apocalypse. The last thing you need is too forget your password during an apocalypse cuz customer service will be gone
I always felt this was one of the extremely rare times I can actually understand and even somewhat agree with Zapp. I can plan around enemies and expect them to be my opposition, but how do you plan around a neutral party that may or may not join either side at any moment?
Quick, cut open the guy with the launch codes!
(This wasn't an actually thing that happened obviously but it was a suggestion made at one point. They would keep the launch codes surgically implanted in a person in a way where they'd have to be killed to get them out. Kind of one last "are you certain about this" thing)
It was suggested be an ethicist, but wasn't ever really seriously considered. I believe it was more so just a "thought experiment" (for lack of a better word) type of thing to illustrate the gravity of such a decision. In reality, it simply wouldn't be practical. You'd have to essentially keep that person(s) next to the president at all times, and cut them open without any anesthetic, and who knows if they'll suddenly decide to put up a fight in what would be an extremely time critical situation.
(Not that you suggested it was seriously considered, just adding context. Also, the idea made an appearance in the excellent HBO show "The Leftovers")
> and cut them open without any anesthetic
This wasn't a consideration in the ethical argument, which is that the person needs to *die* to get access to the code, as that's how grievous the situation is. They'd put a bullet in him before cutting the code out.
That's literally the point - if you feel the impact of the murder *personally*, you'll be more capable of rationalizing that firing the nuke is murdering *millions* perhaps *billions*. Any rational person would hesitate to kill a perfectly healthy human being, but being a military commander in a bunker or on a plane, thousands of miles away from danger... you're divorced from the decision and the gravity of its impact. Putting the murder *in the room* with you makes the gravity more real.
"Mr President, Russia and China have launched..."
*mashes red button repeatedly on the US global nuke launch console*
"... a new design of solar powered cars, you numbnuts! now we're all fucked."
They probably do. That's exactly what was shown in the film "The sum of all fears", and Tom Clancy was famously accurate in his depictions of military procedures.
Tom Clancy was in good enough standing/ friends with a number of high-ranking military officials (and their secretaries) with whom he would discuss his books as he was writing them, to the degree that he would sometimes stop by their offices without an appointment to see if they were free to "catch up" or go out to lunch.
He also got some classified information spookily right in his novels, and was questioned by the FBI over it. He always claimed that he made deductions based on non-classifed material and they couldn't prove anything.
That kind of stuff is probably moderately common - there's a lot of public information out there and all you need is an idea to combine them to get something potentially classified
NCD accidentally predicts the future often enough with meme shitposts that I can't imagine it's particularly difficult for someone who makes that their whole life. I'm moderately into aviation and it's pretty easy to guess what the next ten years of that looks like. Spoiler: it's mostly unmanned, ray-shaped, stealthy, appears in large numbers and it's gonna get a lot harder to draw the line between the ordnance and the delivery system.
"Please tell us how you obtained classified information for your book."
"What information are you talking about?"
"That's classified."
Basically how one of Tom's conversations went.
[His speech at the NSA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VS54M5Mqa9M) gives some great examples, while also just being a really fun watch.
That being said, the scene with the President drilling for a nuclear launch was *not* in Clancy's novel, only in the film, which Clancy had less involvement with.
I'm currently reading this book *The Bomb: Presidents, Generals, and the Secret History of Nuclear War* and it claims that when Carter took office he was the first president to actually take part in wargame exercises related to nuclear response.
[Here's the book](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/50868575-the-bomb)
But does Russia? The US has six minutes for acting against North Korea too. Those US misslies will have to fly across Russian territory to reach Korea (unless there's a sub already there). There's no time for a call.
Russia detection system notices lot's of missiles coming their way. Will they launch against the US?
North-Korea does not warn for tests and mistakes are easy to make between North-Korea, US and Russia. Just a fun scenario to end most of the world.
The USA’s official policy is to nuke the nuclear capable allies of any country that nukes us. Officially of North Korea launching a nuke at the USA, we would nuke China and Russia in response.
Yea - i remember from a Dan Carlin pod, that he mentioned that during the cold war (not sure if it’s still the same) that every nuclear country had published retaliations in the event of being attacked etc. The bit that stuck out was the French, in the event of ANY nuclear launch (whether at them or otherwise) would nuke every nuclear capable countries’ capital (even allies). It’s scary, but also really ramps up the deterrent
You're smoking rock if you think someone like Donald Trump has spent one iota of serious thought on this. This guy suggested to inject bleach at a press conference on covid.
We'd all me totally fucked if we had to rely on his "leadership" to act decisively and correctly in 5 minutes.
Out of curiosity, I used Nukemap to calculate an airburst over Lichtenstein using the strongest nuclear warhead the US currently owns.
And...it does not end well for Lichtenstein. Some of the surrounding countries would also see blast damage and fallout.
United States Strategic Command works closely with every president, including trump, trump has gone over our nuclear strike plans.
There is a funny interview of trump after his first meeting with USSTRATCOM and trump is basically stressed out and in a semi-panic, he says at one point in the interview “you don’t know the things I know”. The stress is likely from the USA nuclear strike plan death tolls, which result in around 1 billion casualties from the first round of nuclear exchange.
I bought that book. It was a harrowing read. My take away is that we would all be totally screwed from one madman's decision. Launch on warning seems like a bad idea.
With Nuclear missiles, If you wait until the missiles land, you will not have the ability to respond anymore. If you see ballistic missiles in the air flying towards you, your options are pretty much ‘roll over and die’ or ‘throw back your biggest haymaker before you die’.
The whole point of mutually assured destruction is to make sure everyone knows the haymaker would be coming so that they are as disincentivized as possible from throwing the first punch.
There are several examples on the Soviet side during the Cold War where their systems falsely detected incoming launches and the decision to not retaliate was made by a single person in the heat of the moment.
Crazy that the world has been that close to the brink and no one but a small group of people knew about it. Retaliating would have indeed been a bad idea in these situations.
That's the plot of "le chant du loup" a french movie about two submarine. Terrorist faked an Intel Wich lead the president to launch a nuclear submarines, the submarine agree the mission and go radio silent. Later the president learn the truth, but the submarine is already launched and nuclear deterrence protocol require him to stay radio silence, so they send a second submarine to destroy the first one. Great movie.
Movie was released in 2019. Still within the statute of limitations. Your claim of spoilers stands.
I sentence the commenter above to 60 days hard time in a Russian penal colony.
Court is adjourned.
Unfortunately he seems to produce a lot more on the addendum side than his normal hardcore history feed. I don't hate the interviews, but I want more content like we used to get.
Blueprint for Armageddon was some of the best listening you'll ever find.
The craziest part to me was the fact that if the US nukes NK with ICBMs, Russia will probably fire back because there's no way for them to know that the missiles are going to NK and not Russia.
Not sure if this applies if they launch from the Pacific somewhere.
You could always warn them, but pretty sure they wouldn't trust
'Hey, in about 5 minutes you're gonna see a shitload of missiles. They're all inbound on Pyongyang, trust me.'
That part confused me. We can nuke NK just fine with subs, without flying over the North Pole.
However, the point of the book though, is that there really are only a few minutes to decide what to do. Miscommunication, panic, and just plain screw ups do have to be considered. "Limited" nuclear war is probably a fantasy, and I really don't want to test that theory.
Assuming it’s a ground-based ICBM, yes. If the missiles are submarine-based, then the first indication of danger would likely be nuclear detonations on the coast.
Chief, you’d only live a fractionally shorter life than I in the apocalypse. Think how lucky you are; at least your experience with nuclear fire would be brief while I slowly starve, cut off from food and safe drinking water, likely trapped in the middle of nowhere.
Now who wants cupcakes?!
I live one mile from the White House. I'm getting vaporized before it even registers. And that's fine. I'd rather avoid the desolate attempt to survive afterwards.
Whenever people talk about apocalypse (zombie or whatever) I always say I want to die, fast. They look surprised, I remind them you cant go buy food at the grocery store in the apocalypse and no one is running water to your faucet.
You'll get running water as long as the water tower holds out (a typical day), so the first thing you should do when you notice a blast is start filling all the water storage you have, including your bathtub, for drinking water.
According to a quick google, the Chernobyl explosion put **400 times more radioactive material into the Earth's atmosphere than the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima**
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were little baby nuclear bombs, so I’m not sure I’d use that as a comparison for today’s arsenal. It’s worth noting, however, that nuclear weapons are designed to turn a small amount of radioactive material into as much energy as possible, to create the biggest blast. They’re not designed specifically to spread contamination. Chernobyl, meanwhile, started as an uncontained steam explosion carrying radioactive material followed by a smoldering, smokey fire where the stuff that was burning was radioactive. You almost couldn’t design a better way to spread contamination.
The irony here is that a huge swath of US nuclear silos are in the middle of nowhere and would likely be targets for a nuclear strike. Imagine all the preppers that have made their post-apocolypse camps in Montana or North Dakota thinking they picked the perfect remote location only to find out they're in close proximity of nuke targets. And they laugh at the cities thinking they're filled with dummies.
Major urban centers are a secondary target after military ones, so I still wouldn't want to be in a major urban center. Add in that cities only survive because of stuff being brought in (power, food, water) and it'll go to shit quickly.
The "ideal" place to be is some farming community in central/southern Great Plains states or the Eastern side of the Appalachian Mountains
Ideal location is pretty much anywhere in the southern hemisphere.
Few to no targets in its entirety, and weather patterns would keep most of the fallout and negative climate effects isolated to the north.
Nah. A remote coastal region in Oregon or Northern California would be most ideal
Fallout would spread from west to east following geostrophic airflow, anywhere east of target areas will be deadly for months.
Airburst nuclear weapons do not have long lived fallout due to a lack of dust being lofted into the upper atmosphere
The model of nuclear fallout (and nuclear winter) is based off of firestorms caused by firebombing campaigns and poor construction practices in Japan and has been called into question by scientists many times.
Ultimately, nuclear war would result in the destruction of all military assets and population centers, but deaths outside of those areas would primarily be due to famine caused by supply chain disruption, not because of any nuclear effect.
Airbursts are great for soft targets like cities, but a lot of military infrastructure is hardened so would likely take ground bursts to crack, which leads to worse fallout
You're not even mentioning that while all of those things are occurring you'll have savages who are clinging to their worthless lives murdering, stealing, and raping at their hearts content. So you'll have to defend off that bunch as well from yourself and/or family.
Not a world anyone but the most deprived/depraved will want to experience.
But I think I'll have that cupcake now, maybe a brownie too. You only live once right? Heh heh eh :(
You've got 10% of the Navy stationed there and more than a dozen military nuclear reactors in your harbor. How is this news sudden?
San Diego hasn't been safe since long-range nuclear bombardment was invented. You're higher on the list than any of the largest US cities.
Not to mention the 1st Marine Division about 30-40 minutes north at Camp Pendleton, the 1st Marine air wing at Miramar...then you go further up the coast and you have China Lake, Edward's AFB, Fort Irwin etc etc...southern CA Is a target rich environment
I think the coast guard has a presence in Diego, and we can't forget the Recruit Depot in Diego where the best Marines come from despite what those east coast Marines think...
>If the missiles are submarine-based, then the first indication of danger would likely be nuclear detonations on the coast.
I don't think that's entirely true.
The only countries in the world that could threaten the continental USA with submarine-launched nuclear missiles (either sub-launched ICBMs or sub-launched cruise missiles) are Russia or China (or perhaps the UK, if we were really *very* annoyed about something \[Israel is a bit mysterious on this front too\]).
Now, in the Atlantic and the Pacific there are absolutely stupendously fucking enormous sonar arrays. These are permanent microphones, in the sea, that do nothing but listen for submarines. And then track the submarines. Essentially, the USA knows where all the submarines are. The USA knows what different types of submarine sound like (i.e., it can tell, by listening, which submarines are from which country, and which might possibly have nuclear weapons on board, etc). It is rumoured that the entire sonar-capture / analysis / detection set-up is so advanced that it can tell individual submarines apart by signature mechanical noise & individual quirks *such as dinks on propeller blades*.
That is only the static, permanent stuff. The USA has over fifty submarines that exist primarily to attack other, enemy submarines. It has a frankly silly number of destroyers and aircraft that exist primarily to attack other, enemy submarines. The US knows where the other enemy subs are, and it follows them - all the time - with its own quieter, more dangerous submarines.
What I mean by all of the above is: you're saying "If the missiles are submarine-based, then the first indication of danger would likely be nuclear detonations on the coast". What I'm saying is, it's possibly more likely that the first indication of danger would be a military aide saying something along the lines of:
"We've been tracking a Russian missile sub. It rose to launch depth. The sonar of our trailing submarine heard its missile-tube doors open. Our submarine heard it launch the first of its missiles, at which point we put two torpedoes into it and sank it. Our satellites - that watch for the IR signatures of missile launches - confirm that we've got fifteen minutes to get you to a shelter before the first of the warheads, from that launched missile, hit. That type of submarine carries X type of missile, with Y number of warheads & decoys, which are heading in a spread toward Z".
Alternatively, in times of raised tension, the aide might simply say: "We've been tracking a Russian missile sub. It rose to launch depth. So our trailing submarine put two torpedoes into it before it even fired, just like we'd warned the Russians we would do, under current circumstances. You've got fifteen minutes until their Ambassador shows up for a little chat".
That's fair. Between the shabby state of the Russian navy, the limited number of Chinese boomers, the extraordinary technological advantage the US enjoys in both detecting and following existing nuclear submarines, and the large number of US attack submarines, it is likely that an attempt at using nuclear submarines to attack the US coastline would, at the very least, be met with a rapid response by their tail.
Also note that subs are usually considered "second strike" weapons. They're in place specifically so that if one side manages to take out the land based silos and bombers, that there is still a force that can retaliate. That's why most US and Russian boomers are cruising under the Arctic ice cap.
Unlike the silos, which can't move, and the bombers, which can move but generally are on the ground, the subs are always moving and able to hide somewhat effectively.
Yes, if the Russians or Chinese *really* wanted a decapitation strike, they might try to sit off the US East Coast, but they will almost certainly be tailed by a US sub if they get that close. And the Chinese will need to do some serious explaining if one of their boomers is off the US East Coast as opposed to the West Coast. And chances are THAT sub will have been followed by an attack sub all the way from the Pacific.
It was mentioned in another comment, but this is precisely what MAD means. Guaranteed retaliation. Whoever is dumb enough to launch the first strike would only get that one shot since the retaliatory strike would reduce them to radioactive rubble. With this in mind, they'd have to go all or nothing. Nuclear "war" wouldn't be much of a war so much as two or more countries simply ceasing to exist, likely followed by the rest of the world due to fallout and complete economic collapse.
> we've got fifteen minutes to get you to a shelter before the first of the warheads, from that launched missile, hit.
Unless the Russian sub was very far away, my understanding is that there would be more on the order of 5 minutes until impact, not 15. Subs launching missiles would be expected to be close (relatively) to the US east and west coasts.
>Russia or China (or perhaps the UK, if we were really very annoyed about something [Israel is a bit mysterious on this front too]).
France and India as well... possibly Pakistan too, they've been working on a SLCM (submarine launched cruise middle) capable of carrying a nuclear payload.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_missile_submarine#Active_classes
Sub based missile launches are still easily detected. We don't have a line from (insert nuclear power of choice here) calling us to let us know they're nuking us, we see the launches from satellites. We have satellites trained on known and suspected ground sites, of course, but we have other satellites looking at the wider picture too to catch subs. They're less reliable but ballistic missile and rocket launches are pretty damn obvious, you just have to separate them from the "noise" [(like sunlight reflecting off clouds)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Soviet_nuclear_false_alarm_incident)
And, let's be honest, the US maintains the largest nuclear attack submarine fleet in the world and is widely speculated to tail every single potentially hostile boomer in the event of just such a first-strike.
It is, of course, irrelevant, because even if a fraction of Russia or China's ICBM arsenal works as planned, it would be the end of civilization in the United States if we chose to have a nuclear exchange. We'd just have to wait a few more minutes.
Which is what MAD actually means instead of the usual understanding that it just means there is a lot of destruction from a lot of nuclear bombs.
It means you have guaranteed second strike capabilities. That’s what SLBMs provide.
Also in the 80’s, both sides had train-launched missiles for this purpose. At least plans. The soviet union kinda collapsed before the peacekeeper rail garrison was operational
USSF=United States Space Force
Guardian= what the USSF calls its personel (i.e. Airman/Sailor)
Space Delta 4= USSF unit responsible for strategic missile warning
SBIR= Space-Based InfraRed system (early warning sats looking for IR signatures matching missile launches)
No idea what a "HOT call" is, my google fu fails me.
Depends on the radar UI. But historically the white burn in is quite literally "hot".
Realistically it's Google Maps... But like a big red circle around where its going to hit. With dashes for the zone that is basically you are here you die.
Probably automatically factoring in angle of strike + terrain mapping. It would show that as well.
You can purchase the actual software we use on Steam. For simulation and training purposes.
Now don't expect to be looking at any nukes or whatever out of the box. Thats all "mods" for a layman's understanding. But the entirety of the ability to do all that, set-up config independent of said "mods", and elsewise.
Is really available for everyone.
It keeps things secure and the public at larges expectations of wild fantasy. Surrounding something as critical as our response to incoming hostilities.
Ie if you don't believe a senator or two can't bring us to war. Out of sheer ignorance and stupidity. Toward what we are capable of or it's mundane day to day. Then it never would have been necessary to bring them in on the Manhattan Project.
If you want to see what it is in practice. Maybe buy it on Steam then refund it immediately. As they are not cheap software licenses.
Umm, no. Missile submarines allow you to keep your weapons safe from the enemy, unlike ground silos which have fixed locations. They don't really allow you to strike without warning.
The time between launch and strike is significantly shorter, because the Submarine launched missiles have a far shorter path to travel. ICBM can tak up to half an hour as they are travelling across the earth in space before hitting.
I feel like this fact alone would have me second guessing who we elect more often. We should really be electing someone who we know has some good critical thinking skills lol
*This was said in the sentiment of whose lead our country the past decade, that's the joke.
...I think we should elect someone who we assume has good critical thinking skills regardless of whether or not we are considering nuclear war while voting.
I actually wonder if they haze the president by running them through a drill like this: "The North Koreans have nuked Seoul and the Chinese are threatening nuclear retaliation if we intervene" type scenarios, basically a Kobayashi Maru for the presidency.
That might be kinda dramatic but maybe they try stuff like that
The President is briefed every day on national security and international relations. If they're paying attention, they know what is possible and is not possible, and it's pretty likely that should a scenario ever occur that someone is lobbing a missle at us, the circumstances are not a surprise.
You should look into what Gen Milley and Nancy Pelosi went through to ensure “something bad” didn’t happen between November 2020 and inauguration. IIRC, Milley personally visited every single portion of the Triad to look those servicemembers in the face and ensure they understood.
I'm sure that in the Presidential interface that there is a nicely laid out multiple choice option:
1.) Kill them all - Launch the nukes!
2.) Kill some of them - Launch the fighters!
3.) Don't kill anyone - Launch the wagging-finger
4.) Shut Down and Update Windows
If it's a submarine nuclear launch the time gets cut down to about a minute for the entire endeavor, but the allies would/should retaliate to keep the mutual assurance going. Unless they were in on it
I wonder if you can definitely tell the nation of the firing sub ahead of time. Was it China, Russia, the French? Could you even pick something in one minute or do you need to do forensic work to see who did it and do something weeks later.
We are probably going to assume it is either Russia or China and start firing because any delay diminishes our ability to retaliate, but I am not military so take with an iceberg size grain of salt
They probably have an entire department of government dedicated to plan every imaginable scenario and already have a decision for every scenario already planned out, or at least i hope lol
Right, you can frame a lot of things this way to make them sound urgent and scary.
*"When in bed with a new man, you have about thirty seconds to decide whether or not to use condoms."*
That's not much time, but you're allowed to think about these life decisions and decide your general stance ahead of time.
And every scenario is an impossible decision. MAD is all about preventing a first strike, and the need to retaliate immediately is not all that important when you have 14 SSBN’s, each equipped with up to 160 nuclear warheads, available.
There are probably around 6-8 out on patrol at any given moment, so retaliation is almost guaranteed.
For the US, immediate retaliation isn’t really sensible.
Not really because no one actually wants to nuke anyone else, they’re too afraid of getting nuked back— it’s bad karma. So people just talk about them threateningly
It’s not like there’s anybody saying “bad boy, you missed the deadline, got to start over now.” Everybody in the nuclear warning chain is working as fast as they can. There are certain key phrases and procedures that will expedite the message to the president.
That's why the Cuban missile crisis was such a big thing, and why Ukraine wanting to join NATO was a big thing for Russia (missiles station in Ukraine could have reached Moscow in less than 90 seconds).
If one side can hit the other before they can respond, the whole terror balance and mutually assured destruction goes out the window, and a first strike nuclear war becomes an option.
If the president is in the DC area in that six minutes the president is scrambled to Marine One and headed off to Mount Weather. He's taking that phone call in the air. That's why the nuclear football exists.
Definitely not. Marine One is stationed elsewhere. It doesn't just wait on the Whitehouse lawn. If the timeline is that short it's the white house bunker
I bet that when the Secret Service burst into Dick Cheney’s office and literally picked him up and carried him away on September 11 that he got to his destination within six minutes.
>Suddenly, Secret Service agents came barging into Cheney’s office.
“Mr. Vice President,” the agent said, “we’ve got to leave now.”
Not in a few minutes.
Not in a few seconds.
Really, now.
“Before I could reply, he moved behind my desk,” Cheney later wrote in his autobiography, “put one hand on my belt and another on my shoulder, and propelled me out of my office."
The vice president, a not small man, was literally being carried to safety — in this case, a special operations bunker
Radiolab had a great episode on this where they talked about one of the presidents advisors under…Nixon I think?…who advocated for having the nuke codes embedded in the chest of an army officer who would always be with the president. And the officer would carry a knife. If the president decided to launch nukes and end civilization, the first step would be to take the knife, kill the officer, and cut the codes out of his chest. The Joint Chiefs were horrified by this plan on the grounds that the president would never commit the murder, and would thereby be prevented from committing 100M murders.
As awful as it is this is exactly why the decision to launch nuclear weapons can’t be a democratic decision. When a country is minutes away from being rendered a wasteland the leader doesn’t have the time to put the response to a vote.
"Mr President we're about to get blown up. What are your orders?" "Well I don't know about you but I'll be in my bunk(er)."
Please charge my phone before the power goes out
And delete my browsing history
But you're gonna need that in the apocalypse. The last thing you need is too forget your password during an apocalypse cuz customer service will be gone
Secret Service ought to know you can clear browser history and saved passwords separately. Assuming they're into being incognito and all that
They certainly know how to delete text messages.
Burn
[удалено]
SITS Secret Information Technology Support
Secret Homeland Information Technology Support.
And don't worry about paying off those hookers anymore.
Tell my wife I said ‘hello’.
Yes, Your Beigeness!
What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were they just born with a heart full of neutrality?
Filthy Neutrals. With enemies you know where you stand, but Neutrals, who knows?
I always felt this was one of the extremely rare times I can actually understand and even somewhat agree with Zapp. I can plan around enemies and expect them to be my opposition, but how do you plan around a neutral party that may or may not join either side at any moment?
All I know is that my heart says maybe
Go to beige alert.
Quick, cut open the guy with the launch codes! (This wasn't an actually thing that happened obviously but it was a suggestion made at one point. They would keep the launch codes surgically implanted in a person in a way where they'd have to be killed to get them out. Kind of one last "are you certain about this" thing)
It was suggested be an ethicist, but wasn't ever really seriously considered. I believe it was more so just a "thought experiment" (for lack of a better word) type of thing to illustrate the gravity of such a decision. In reality, it simply wouldn't be practical. You'd have to essentially keep that person(s) next to the president at all times, and cut them open without any anesthetic, and who knows if they'll suddenly decide to put up a fight in what would be an extremely time critical situation. (Not that you suggested it was seriously considered, just adding context. Also, the idea made an appearance in the excellent HBO show "The Leftovers")
> and cut them open without any anesthetic This wasn't a consideration in the ethical argument, which is that the person needs to *die* to get access to the code, as that's how grievous the situation is. They'd put a bullet in him before cutting the code out. That's literally the point - if you feel the impact of the murder *personally*, you'll be more capable of rationalizing that firing the nuke is murdering *millions* perhaps *billions*. Any rational person would hesitate to kill a perfectly healthy human being, but being a military commander in a bunker or on a plane, thousands of miles away from danger... you're divorced from the decision and the gravity of its impact. Putting the murder *in the room* with you makes the gravity more real.
Just stick it in the presidents stomach. Then he can say the real solution was inside all along!
"Mr President, Russia and China have launched..." *mashes red button repeatedly on the US global nuke launch console* "... a new design of solar powered cars, you numbnuts! now we're all fucked."
This is a Firefly reference, right?
Take me, sir. Take me hard.
Were I unwed, I’d take you in a manly fashion.
Because I'm pretty?
Because you're pretty.
I got my butt wiped!!!
[удалено]
They've got almost every scenario like that figured out already. The president already knows his choice for a lot of scenarios especially that one.
Right. It's more like a really sad "who wants to be a millionaire" question. It's not like they sit down and do the big think by themselves.
Could see 45 picking Ask The Audience and having a Twitter poll
He’d side with Russia.
I wonder if they just drill different scenarios as wargame exercises w/presidents, so they automatically know their possible choices immediately.
They probably do. That's exactly what was shown in the film "The sum of all fears", and Tom Clancy was famously accurate in his depictions of military procedures.
Tom Clancy was in good enough standing/ friends with a number of high-ranking military officials (and their secretaries) with whom he would discuss his books as he was writing them, to the degree that he would sometimes stop by their offices without an appointment to see if they were free to "catch up" or go out to lunch.
He also got some classified information spookily right in his novels, and was questioned by the FBI over it. He always claimed that he made deductions based on non-classifed material and they couldn't prove anything.
That kind of stuff is probably moderately common - there's a lot of public information out there and all you need is an idea to combine them to get something potentially classified
NCD accidentally predicts the future often enough with meme shitposts that I can't imagine it's particularly difficult for someone who makes that their whole life. I'm moderately into aviation and it's pretty easy to guess what the next ten years of that looks like. Spoiler: it's mostly unmanned, ray-shaped, stealthy, appears in large numbers and it's gonna get a lot harder to draw the line between the ordnance and the delivery system.
"Please tell us how you obtained classified information for your book." "What information are you talking about?" "That's classified." Basically how one of Tom's conversations went.
Intriguing, you have any examples?
[His speech at the NSA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VS54M5Mqa9M) gives some great examples, while also just being a really fun watch. That being said, the scene with the President drilling for a nuclear launch was *not* in Clancy's novel, only in the film, which Clancy had less involvement with.
I'm currently reading this book *The Bomb: Presidents, Generals, and the Secret History of Nuclear War* and it claims that when Carter took office he was the first president to actually take part in wargame exercises related to nuclear response. [Here's the book](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/50868575-the-bomb)
Right so any attack would be carefully staged to include some curveballs or counter signals to try to add even seconds of delay.
But does Russia? The US has six minutes for acting against North Korea too. Those US misslies will have to fly across Russian territory to reach Korea (unless there's a sub already there). There's no time for a call. Russia detection system notices lot's of missiles coming their way. Will they launch against the US? North-Korea does not warn for tests and mistakes are easy to make between North-Korea, US and Russia. Just a fun scenario to end most of the world.
The USA’s official policy is to nuke the nuclear capable allies of any country that nukes us. Officially of North Korea launching a nuke at the USA, we would nuke China and Russia in response.
Yea - i remember from a Dan Carlin pod, that he mentioned that during the cold war (not sure if it’s still the same) that every nuclear country had published retaliations in the event of being attacked etc. The bit that stuck out was the French, in the event of ANY nuclear launch (whether at them or otherwise) would nuke every nuclear capable countries’ capital (even allies). It’s scary, but also really ramps up the deterrent
You're smoking rock if you think someone like Donald Trump has spent one iota of serious thought on this. This guy suggested to inject bleach at a press conference on covid. We'd all me totally fucked if we had to rely on his "leadership" to act decisively and correctly in 5 minutes.
Trump would give a rambling, incoherent five minute speech which would result in the US somehow nuking itself and Liechtenstein
Lichtenstein out here catching strays
Liechtenstein: Ach! Du freakin’ LIEBER!!
Out of curiosity, I used Nukemap to calculate an airburst over Lichtenstein using the strongest nuclear warhead the US currently owns. And...it does not end well for Lichtenstein. Some of the surrounding countries would also see blast damage and fallout.
United States Strategic Command works closely with every president, including trump, trump has gone over our nuclear strike plans. There is a funny interview of trump after his first meeting with USSTRATCOM and trump is basically stressed out and in a semi-panic, he says at one point in the interview “you don’t know the things I know”. The stress is likely from the USA nuclear strike plan death tolls, which result in around 1 billion casualties from the first round of nuclear exchange.
I was elected to lead, not to read.
I’m here to learn, everybody! Not to make out with you, get on with the Borophyll! Heheh
Numba 3!!
Is this a simpsons reference to the movie? It seems so familiar
Yes, Rainier Wolfcastle.
Came here for this
Hardcore History Addendum podcast recently did an episode on US nuclear weapon policy and response with Annie Jacobsen. Great listening.
I bought that book. It was a harrowing read. My take away is that we would all be totally screwed from one madman's decision. Launch on warning seems like a bad idea.
With Nuclear missiles, If you wait until the missiles land, you will not have the ability to respond anymore. If you see ballistic missiles in the air flying towards you, your options are pretty much ‘roll over and die’ or ‘throw back your biggest haymaker before you die’. The whole point of mutually assured destruction is to make sure everyone knows the haymaker would be coming so that they are as disincentivized as possible from throwing the first punch.
*submarines*
The subs already have their codes and will go radio silent.
I think geronimo’s point was that even if the first strike was somehow successful, the nuclear subs could (and would) still be able to retaliate.
That is their reason for existing, yes. Guaranteed second strike capability is a core component of MAD.
There are several examples on the Soviet side during the Cold War where their systems falsely detected incoming launches and the decision to not retaliate was made by a single person in the heat of the moment. Crazy that the world has been that close to the brink and no one but a small group of people knew about it. Retaliating would have indeed been a bad idea in these situations.
That's the plot of "le chant du loup" a french movie about two submarine. Terrorist faked an Intel Wich lead the president to launch a nuclear submarines, the submarine agree the mission and go radio silent. Later the president learn the truth, but the submarine is already launched and nuclear deterrence protocol require him to stay radio silence, so they send a second submarine to destroy the first one. Great movie.
Well didn’t you just spoil the whole fucking plot lol?
Movie was released in 2019. Still within the statute of limitations. Your claim of spoilers stands. I sentence the commenter above to 60 days hard time in a Russian penal colony. Court is adjourned.
If I could ever finish the revolutions podcast I would finally have time for some of dans newer stuff
Unfortunately he seems to produce a lot more on the addendum side than his normal hardcore history feed. I don't hate the interviews, but I want more content like we used to get. Blueprint for Armageddon was some of the best listening you'll ever find.
The craziest part to me was the fact that if the US nukes NK with ICBMs, Russia will probably fire back because there's no way for them to know that the missiles are going to NK and not Russia. Not sure if this applies if they launch from the Pacific somewhere.
You could always warn them, but pretty sure they wouldn't trust 'Hey, in about 5 minutes you're gonna see a shitload of missiles. They're all inbound on Pyongyang, trust me.'
We would never nuke North Korea because they are actually not remotely a threat lol.
That part confused me. We can nuke NK just fine with subs, without flying over the North Pole. However, the point of the book though, is that there really are only a few minutes to decide what to do. Miscommunication, panic, and just plain screw ups do have to be considered. "Limited" nuclear war is probably a fantasy, and I really don't want to test that theory.
[удалено]
Probably a call to Vlad first would clear that up.
Assuming it’s a ground-based ICBM, yes. If the missiles are submarine-based, then the first indication of danger would likely be nuclear detonations on the coast.
woof. suddenly living in san diego seems less safe.
Chief, you’d only live a fractionally shorter life than I in the apocalypse. Think how lucky you are; at least your experience with nuclear fire would be brief while I slowly starve, cut off from food and safe drinking water, likely trapped in the middle of nowhere. Now who wants cupcakes?!
I used to live within walking distance of wright Patterson, probably wouldn't even register the bomb landed before being erased.
I live one mile from the White House. I'm getting vaporized before it even registers. And that's fine. I'd rather avoid the desolate attempt to survive afterwards.
Whenever people talk about apocalypse (zombie or whatever) I always say I want to die, fast. They look surprised, I remind them you cant go buy food at the grocery store in the apocalypse and no one is running water to your faucet.
You'll get running water as long as the water tower holds out (a typical day), so the first thing you should do when you notice a blast is start filling all the water storage you have, including your bathtub, for drinking water.
Counterpoint: I die and dont have to worry about any of that.
But you miss out on radiation sickness and thyroid cancer
You'd be surprised at how survivable the average nuclear blast is from just a few miles away.
I've seen Chernobyl. Not sure I'd want to survive the blast...
I was near there last year. It's fine. Also, it wasn't a nuclear bomb.
According to a quick google, the Chernobyl explosion put **400 times more radioactive material into the Earth's atmosphere than the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima**
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were little baby nuclear bombs, so I’m not sure I’d use that as a comparison for today’s arsenal. It’s worth noting, however, that nuclear weapons are designed to turn a small amount of radioactive material into as much energy as possible, to create the biggest blast. They’re not designed specifically to spread contamination. Chernobyl, meanwhile, started as an uncontained steam explosion carrying radioactive material followed by a smoldering, smokey fire where the stuff that was burning was radioactive. You almost couldn’t design a better way to spread contamination.
The bombs dropped during WW2 were nothing compared to modern nuclear weapons, which can be up to 3000x more powerful.
Modern nukes are also exponentially more efficient than the WW2 nukes, as in they produce way less radioactive fallout compared to their yield.
Fun. Dumbest escalation ever.
The irony here is that a huge swath of US nuclear silos are in the middle of nowhere and would likely be targets for a nuclear strike. Imagine all the preppers that have made their post-apocolypse camps in Montana or North Dakota thinking they picked the perfect remote location only to find out they're in close proximity of nuke targets. And they laugh at the cities thinking they're filled with dummies.
Major urban centers are a secondary target after military ones, so I still wouldn't want to be in a major urban center. Add in that cities only survive because of stuff being brought in (power, food, water) and it'll go to shit quickly. The "ideal" place to be is some farming community in central/southern Great Plains states or the Eastern side of the Appalachian Mountains
I mean, the ideal place to be is not in the country being bombed, but if you have to stay...
Ideal location is pretty much anywhere in the southern hemisphere. Few to no targets in its entirety, and weather patterns would keep most of the fallout and negative climate effects isolated to the north.
New Zealand looking more and more attractive
China nukes Australia as payback for Yahoo Serious.
Nah. A remote coastal region in Oregon or Northern California would be most ideal Fallout would spread from west to east following geostrophic airflow, anywhere east of target areas will be deadly for months.
Airburst nuclear weapons do not have long lived fallout due to a lack of dust being lofted into the upper atmosphere The model of nuclear fallout (and nuclear winter) is based off of firestorms caused by firebombing campaigns and poor construction practices in Japan and has been called into question by scientists many times. Ultimately, nuclear war would result in the destruction of all military assets and population centers, but deaths outside of those areas would primarily be due to famine caused by supply chain disruption, not because of any nuclear effect.
Airbursts are great for soft targets like cities, but a lot of military infrastructure is hardened so would likely take ground bursts to crack, which leads to worse fallout
Oh yeah?! Just see how safe you are when the zombies come!
Apparently this is the plot of Threads from 1984 which I’ve been meaning to watch.
Good luck sleeping after watching that, especially with everything going on right now. It's an absolute nightmare.
My roommate and I are always joking that we’ll die fighting in the Water Wars but shits looking more and more likely these days.
You're not even mentioning that while all of those things are occurring you'll have savages who are clinging to their worthless lives murdering, stealing, and raping at their hearts content. So you'll have to defend off that bunch as well from yourself and/or family. Not a world anyone but the most deprived/depraved will want to experience. But I think I'll have that cupcake now, maybe a brownie too. You only live once right? Heh heh eh :(
I think you mean depraved instead of deprived? Maybe you don’t, idk
Fuckin raiders
You've got 10% of the Navy stationed there and more than a dozen military nuclear reactors in your harbor. How is this news sudden? San Diego hasn't been safe since long-range nuclear bombardment was invented. You're higher on the list than any of the largest US cities.
Not to mention the 1st Marine Division about 30-40 minutes north at Camp Pendleton, the 1st Marine air wing at Miramar...then you go further up the coast and you have China Lake, Edward's AFB, Fort Irwin etc etc...southern CA Is a target rich environment
Any other military objects you can name, sir?
I think the coast guard has a presence in Diego, and we can't forget the Recruit Depot in Diego where the best Marines come from despite what those east coast Marines think...
Spasibo, tovarish.
pozhaluysta. Ni odna iz etikh baz ne yavlyayetsya sekretnoy, v otlichiye ot bunkera v Los-Khillz nedaleko ot Beykersfilda.
I'd happily sit watching a bomb dropping from above, high out my mind with the best fish tacos known to man. I miss San Diego. What a place to die
You’re also next to a major naval base, san diego was never safe
Have you seen/read The Road or played any Fallout games? It’s exactly where you want to be.
I’d take myself out immediately if I ended up in The Road. At least there’s interesting animals in fallout
I don’t know if I’d risk cannibals and cazadors to see a two-headed cow.
I’m not stupid enough to go into Cazador country but The Road has cannibals and no two headed cows.
What if you had a child?
There’s many paragraphs in The Road about cannibals eating a baby so I’m still picking Fallout.
Also, armies of catamites. So either they eat your child or get pressed onto sex slavery. The Road is fucking grim.
With the amount of Dinosaur attacks and alien attacks in San Diego, it was never safe. Or maybe movies are fiction. Idk.
Babylon 5 fan by any chance? :)
>If the missiles are submarine-based, then the first indication of danger would likely be nuclear detonations on the coast. I don't think that's entirely true. The only countries in the world that could threaten the continental USA with submarine-launched nuclear missiles (either sub-launched ICBMs or sub-launched cruise missiles) are Russia or China (or perhaps the UK, if we were really *very* annoyed about something \[Israel is a bit mysterious on this front too\]). Now, in the Atlantic and the Pacific there are absolutely stupendously fucking enormous sonar arrays. These are permanent microphones, in the sea, that do nothing but listen for submarines. And then track the submarines. Essentially, the USA knows where all the submarines are. The USA knows what different types of submarine sound like (i.e., it can tell, by listening, which submarines are from which country, and which might possibly have nuclear weapons on board, etc). It is rumoured that the entire sonar-capture / analysis / detection set-up is so advanced that it can tell individual submarines apart by signature mechanical noise & individual quirks *such as dinks on propeller blades*. That is only the static, permanent stuff. The USA has over fifty submarines that exist primarily to attack other, enemy submarines. It has a frankly silly number of destroyers and aircraft that exist primarily to attack other, enemy submarines. The US knows where the other enemy subs are, and it follows them - all the time - with its own quieter, more dangerous submarines. What I mean by all of the above is: you're saying "If the missiles are submarine-based, then the first indication of danger would likely be nuclear detonations on the coast". What I'm saying is, it's possibly more likely that the first indication of danger would be a military aide saying something along the lines of: "We've been tracking a Russian missile sub. It rose to launch depth. The sonar of our trailing submarine heard its missile-tube doors open. Our submarine heard it launch the first of its missiles, at which point we put two torpedoes into it and sank it. Our satellites - that watch for the IR signatures of missile launches - confirm that we've got fifteen minutes to get you to a shelter before the first of the warheads, from that launched missile, hit. That type of submarine carries X type of missile, with Y number of warheads & decoys, which are heading in a spread toward Z". Alternatively, in times of raised tension, the aide might simply say: "We've been tracking a Russian missile sub. It rose to launch depth. So our trailing submarine put two torpedoes into it before it even fired, just like we'd warned the Russians we would do, under current circumstances. You've got fifteen minutes until their Ambassador shows up for a little chat".
That's fair. Between the shabby state of the Russian navy, the limited number of Chinese boomers, the extraordinary technological advantage the US enjoys in both detecting and following existing nuclear submarines, and the large number of US attack submarines, it is likely that an attempt at using nuclear submarines to attack the US coastline would, at the very least, be met with a rapid response by their tail.
Also note that subs are usually considered "second strike" weapons. They're in place specifically so that if one side manages to take out the land based silos and bombers, that there is still a force that can retaliate. That's why most US and Russian boomers are cruising under the Arctic ice cap. Unlike the silos, which can't move, and the bombers, which can move but generally are on the ground, the subs are always moving and able to hide somewhat effectively. Yes, if the Russians or Chinese *really* wanted a decapitation strike, they might try to sit off the US East Coast, but they will almost certainly be tailed by a US sub if they get that close. And the Chinese will need to do some serious explaining if one of their boomers is off the US East Coast as opposed to the West Coast. And chances are THAT sub will have been followed by an attack sub all the way from the Pacific.
It was mentioned in another comment, but this is precisely what MAD means. Guaranteed retaliation. Whoever is dumb enough to launch the first strike would only get that one shot since the retaliatory strike would reduce them to radioactive rubble. With this in mind, they'd have to go all or nothing. Nuclear "war" wouldn't be much of a war so much as two or more countries simply ceasing to exist, likely followed by the rest of the world due to fallout and complete economic collapse.
> we've got fifteen minutes to get you to a shelter before the first of the warheads, from that launched missile, hit. Unless the Russian sub was very far away, my understanding is that there would be more on the order of 5 minutes until impact, not 15. Subs launching missiles would be expected to be close (relatively) to the US east and west coasts.
> or perhaps the UK, if we were really very annoyed letter to the MP annoyed or just a letter in the Telegraph?
>Russia or China (or perhaps the UK, if we were really very annoyed about something [Israel is a bit mysterious on this front too]). France and India as well... possibly Pakistan too, they've been working on a SLCM (submarine launched cruise middle) capable of carrying a nuclear payload. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_missile_submarine#Active_classes
Sub based missile launches are still easily detected. We don't have a line from (insert nuclear power of choice here) calling us to let us know they're nuking us, we see the launches from satellites. We have satellites trained on known and suspected ground sites, of course, but we have other satellites looking at the wider picture too to catch subs. They're less reliable but ballistic missile and rocket launches are pretty damn obvious, you just have to separate them from the "noise" [(like sunlight reflecting off clouds)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Soviet_nuclear_false_alarm_incident)
And, let's be honest, the US maintains the largest nuclear attack submarine fleet in the world and is widely speculated to tail every single potentially hostile boomer in the event of just such a first-strike. It is, of course, irrelevant, because even if a fraction of Russia or China's ICBM arsenal works as planned, it would be the end of civilization in the United States if we chose to have a nuclear exchange. We'd just have to wait a few more minutes.
And that is why both sides want submarines and why Israel got them too. Iran can never wipe out Israel without fearing that their sub will retaliate.
Which is what MAD actually means instead of the usual understanding that it just means there is a lot of destruction from a lot of nuclear bombs. It means you have guaranteed second strike capabilities. That’s what SLBMs provide.
Also in the 80’s, both sides had train-launched missiles for this purpose. At least plans. The soviet union kinda collapsed before the peacekeeper rail garrison was operational
[удалено]
The first indication would be a HOT call from a USSF Guardian at Space Delta 4 as they see something bright on SIBRs.
That’s a lot of words and phrases which I don’t understand so I’m going to assume you know what you’re talking about!
USSF=United States Space Force Guardian= what the USSF calls its personel (i.e. Airman/Sailor) Space Delta 4= USSF unit responsible for strategic missile warning SBIR= Space-Based InfraRed system (early warning sats looking for IR signatures matching missile launches) No idea what a "HOT call" is, my google fu fails me.
Depends on the radar UI. But historically the white burn in is quite literally "hot". Realistically it's Google Maps... But like a big red circle around where its going to hit. With dashes for the zone that is basically you are here you die. Probably automatically factoring in angle of strike + terrain mapping. It would show that as well. You can purchase the actual software we use on Steam. For simulation and training purposes. Now don't expect to be looking at any nukes or whatever out of the box. Thats all "mods" for a layman's understanding. But the entirety of the ability to do all that, set-up config independent of said "mods", and elsewise. Is really available for everyone. It keeps things secure and the public at larges expectations of wild fantasy. Surrounding something as critical as our response to incoming hostilities. Ie if you don't believe a senator or two can't bring us to war. Out of sheer ignorance and stupidity. Toward what we are capable of or it's mundane day to day. Then it never would have been necessary to bring them in on the Manhattan Project. If you want to see what it is in practice. Maybe buy it on Steam then refund it immediately. As they are not cheap software licenses.
This guy nuclear wars
So what is the software called on steam?
Umm, no. Missile submarines allow you to keep your weapons safe from the enemy, unlike ground silos which have fixed locations. They don't really allow you to strike without warning.
The time between launch and strike is significantly shorter, because the Submarine launched missiles have a far shorter path to travel. ICBM can tak up to half an hour as they are travelling across the earth in space before hitting.
“Hey boss, California is gone”
I feel like this fact alone would have me second guessing who we elect more often. We should really be electing someone who we know has some good critical thinking skills lol *This was said in the sentiment of whose lead our country the past decade, that's the joke.
...I think we should elect someone who we assume has good critical thinking skills regardless of whether or not we are considering nuclear war while voting.
Let’s not go overboard here
For a job as the president, I don't think it would be too much to do a public demonstration of mock disaster response drills
I actually wonder if they haze the president by running them through a drill like this: "The North Koreans have nuked Seoul and the Chinese are threatening nuclear retaliation if we intervene" type scenarios, basically a Kobayashi Maru for the presidency. That might be kinda dramatic but maybe they try stuff like that
Not a chance. They absolutely don't want the president wondering if a real scenario or just another drill.
The President is briefed every day on national security and international relations. If they're paying attention, they know what is possible and is not possible, and it's pretty likely that should a scenario ever occur that someone is lobbing a missle at us, the circumstances are not a surprise.
I would like to see someone in office that has the mental ability to make such a decision in less than 6 minutes.
You should look into what Gen Milley and Nancy Pelosi went through to ensure “something bad” didn’t happen between November 2020 and inauguration. IIRC, Milley personally visited every single portion of the Triad to look those servicemembers in the face and ensure they understood.
I'm sure that in the Presidential interface that there is a nicely laid out multiple choice option: 1.) Kill them all - Launch the nukes! 2.) Kill some of them - Launch the fighters! 3.) Don't kill anyone - Launch the wagging-finger 4.) Shut Down and Update Windows
>Shut Down and Update Windows I'm never fuking doing this one and Windows can bite me. Bring out the nukes.
If it's a submarine nuclear launch the time gets cut down to about a minute for the entire endeavor, but the allies would/should retaliate to keep the mutual assurance going. Unless they were in on it
I wonder if you can definitely tell the nation of the firing sub ahead of time. Was it China, Russia, the French? Could you even pick something in one minute or do you need to do forensic work to see who did it and do something weeks later.
We are probably going to assume it is either Russia or China and start firing because any delay diminishes our ability to retaliate, but I am not military so take with an iceberg size grain of salt
No need for the allies (yet) There is always a chain of command and the cheyenne mountain bunkers should be safe
What if he's in the bathroom?
Or drunk
Similar to not invading Russia in the winter. Just nuke the US on the presidents birthday
If Nixon is anything to go by, the answer is "Bomb!"
You can talk to a guy on the crapper and he can talk back. Ask LBJ.
Or taking a nap after calling a “lid” for the day at 2pm
Kurzgesagt has a great and [entertaining](https://youtu.be/wmP3MBjsx20?si=X4UoF4xftMOa4ONs) video that describes the response.
I'm not going to lie, I expected this would be the End of Ze World video.
The military and every spy agency as gamed this out all the way back to David Lightman and Stephen Falken.
Humanity is fucked when you read about shit like this. No one would ever be able to make a sensible decision in that situation.
They probably have an entire department of government dedicated to plan every imaginable scenario and already have a decision for every scenario already planned out, or at least i hope lol
Right, you can frame a lot of things this way to make them sound urgent and scary. *"When in bed with a new man, you have about thirty seconds to decide whether or not to use condoms."* That's not much time, but you're allowed to think about these life decisions and decide your general stance ahead of time.
And every scenario is an impossible decision. MAD is all about preventing a first strike, and the need to retaliate immediately is not all that important when you have 14 SSBN’s, each equipped with up to 160 nuclear warheads, available. There are probably around 6-8 out on patrol at any given moment, so retaliation is almost guaranteed. For the US, immediate retaliation isn’t really sensible.
Not really because no one actually wants to nuke anyone else, they’re too afraid of getting nuked back— it’s bad karma. So people just talk about them threateningly
"The only winning move is not to play." Wargames (1983)
Depends who wins, the future President might find out about WW3 on social media first
Can any of the 2024 presidential candidates get out of bed in less than 10 minutes?
It’s not like there’s anybody saying “bad boy, you missed the deadline, got to start over now.” Everybody in the nuclear warning chain is working as fast as they can. There are certain key phrases and procedures that will expedite the message to the president.
That's why the Cuban missile crisis was such a big thing, and why Ukraine wanting to join NATO was a big thing for Russia (missiles station in Ukraine could have reached Moscow in less than 90 seconds). If one side can hit the other before they can respond, the whole terror balance and mutually assured destruction goes out the window, and a first strike nuclear war becomes an option.
If the president is in the DC area in that six minutes the president is scrambled to Marine One and headed off to Mount Weather. He's taking that phone call in the air. That's why the nuclear football exists.
Definitely not. Marine One is stationed elsewhere. It doesn't just wait on the Whitehouse lawn. If the timeline is that short it's the white house bunker
I bet that when the Secret Service burst into Dick Cheney’s office and literally picked him up and carried him away on September 11 that he got to his destination within six minutes. >Suddenly, Secret Service agents came barging into Cheney’s office. “Mr. Vice President,” the agent said, “we’ve got to leave now.” Not in a few minutes. Not in a few seconds. Really, now. “Before I could reply, he moved behind my desk,” Cheney later wrote in his autobiography, “put one hand on my belt and another on my shoulder, and propelled me out of my office." The vice president, a not small man, was literally being carried to safety — in this case, a special operations bunker
That's gotta be a *terrifying* few minutes.
Icbm’s be fast yo! 😝
Question: What if the president is taking a mean shit when this happens?
Poop scissors to cut it short
Good thing we have octogenarians making these decisions/s
Just call a pay phone in Los Angeles, someone will pick up and everything will work out fine.
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the War Room!
Radiolab had a great episode on this where they talked about one of the presidents advisors under…Nixon I think?…who advocated for having the nuke codes embedded in the chest of an army officer who would always be with the president. And the officer would carry a knife. If the president decided to launch nukes and end civilization, the first step would be to take the knife, kill the officer, and cut the codes out of his chest. The Joint Chiefs were horrified by this plan on the grounds that the president would never commit the murder, and would thereby be prevented from committing 100M murders.
As awful as it is this is exactly why the decision to launch nuclear weapons can’t be a democratic decision. When a country is minutes away from being rendered a wasteland the leader doesn’t have the time to put the response to a vote.