Atomic war between Us and Europe

The merchant of Venice · Nov 13, 2012

In a pure speculative and irrealistic scenario of total war between the Us on one side and Uk/France on the other side, with both sides determined to use their atomic arsenal to destroy and exterminate the opponent, how much damage would british and french bombs do to the United States?

This is merely a technical question based on the power of the two european countries nuclear weapons.

I have no doubts that Us arsenal is big enough to destroy europe, but how big of a devastation would the us suffer?

Iolo · Nov 13, 2012

Very little - they are there for préstige and votes, not use.

astafjevs · Nov 13, 2012

It would depend on the location of the submarines at the outbreak of hostilities, I would imagine.

bartieboy · Nov 13, 2012

Iolo said:
Very little - they are there for préstige and votes, not use.

These are nuclear bombs that we are talking about.... A few submarines could take out the entire city of new York.

So I gues it depends on your definition of very little.

Spartacuss · Nov 13, 2012

Just as the speculative nature of op is considered here, the same has been done by all countries with nuclear arsenals. Here in the US virtually every possible scenario has been run, and best recommended options are established in basic planning. I doubt there could be any surprise first strikes nation to nation militarily. The only surprise would come from clandestine infiltration of a country's borders with easily handled, relatively small yield weapons. The defense against this scenario rest solely in intelligence efforts, and the response would be considered more in limited retaliation, and is probably the "best" chance out of all for a limited nuclear war.

Ancientgeezer · Nov 13, 2012

astafjevs said:
It would depend on the location of the submarines at the outbreak of hostilities, I would imagine.

Thanks to the miracle of spherical geometry, a Trident II missile launched from the arctic sea could reach any part of the United States. One launched from the Atlantic on the equator could reach anywhere except Hawaii. The French missiles have a slighter shorter range, but could also reach, say, San Diego from the Mediterranean or Omaha from French Polynesia.
However the combined Anglo-French nuclear arsenal is a paltry 525 warheads against the US stockple of 8000 odd. A surprise attack using the entire Anglo-Franch nuclear arsenal could destroy all US bases, land based nuclear forces, battle-groups at sea, command centres and a selection of major population centres, however they could not touch the strategic submarines until they fired their first missiles. As the Anglo-French forces are submarine launched and once a launch takes place, the entire arsenal would have to be fired at once, they would then be pinpointed and the US subs could then reply.
A silly idea really. If Britain and France destroyed the USA, who would we sneer at? If conversely the USA destroyed Britain and France, who would they brag to?

astafjevs · Nov 13, 2012

Ancientgeezer said:
Thanks to the miracle of spherical geometry, a Trident II missile launched from the arctic sea could reach any part of the United States. One launched from the Atlantic on the equator could reach anywhere except Hawaii. The French missiles have a slighter shorter range, but could also reach, say, San Diego from the Mediterranean or Omaha from French Polynesia.
However the combined Anglo-French nuclear arsenal is a paltry 525 warheads against the US stockple of 8000 odd. A surprise attack using the entire Anglo-Franch nuclear arsenal could destroy all US bases, land based nuclear forces, battle-groups at sea, command centres and a selection of major population centres, however they could not touch the strategic submarines until they fired their first missiles. As the Anglo-French forces are submarine launched and once a launch takes place, the entire arsenal would have to be fired at once, they would then be pinpointed and the US subs could then reply.
A silly idea really. If Britain and France destroyed the USA, who would we sneer at? If conversely the USA destroyed Britain and France, who would they brag to?

My original reply nearly said that even in such a hypothetical situation, the UK and France would be more likely to attack each other than the US!

I had no idea at all on the range of the Trident missiles. Thanks.

AlpinLuke · Nov 13, 2012

The main factor would be simply the dimension of the territory.

In the short term, in case of nuclear conflict, US generals would aim at France and UK, leaving the rest of EU for an eventual second phase [with a conventional invasion, a kind of second D-Day].

France and UK can count more than 500 nuclear warheads [see Federation of American Scientists :: Status of World Nuclear Forces ]http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/nuclearweapons/nukestatus.html

Sure a considerable power, but enough to win against a country with a so wide territory? I'm not that sure, overall keeping in mind that AEGIS [and evolved AM systems] will intercept a part of the EU missiles, while in this field [AM systems] Europeans are a bit slow to develop.

http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/nuclearweapons/nukestatus.html

gregorian · Nov 13, 2012

"Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed, but I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops"

Ancientgeezer · Nov 13, 2012

gregorian said:
"Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed, but I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops"

General Buck Turgidson

dagul · Nov 13, 2012

I am a bit confused of mentioning U.K. and France only. Like Russia is not in Europe?

Spartacuss · Nov 13, 2012

gregorian said:
"Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed, but I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops"

Great movie.

Stephy · Nov 13, 2012

dagul said:
I am a bit confused of mentioning U.K. and France only. Like Russia is not in Europe?

Part of it is, but how many of the missiles are? Probably more than half I guess.

gregorian · Nov 13, 2012

dagul said:
I am a bit confused of mentioning U.K. and France only. Like Russia is not in Europe?

Well throwing in Russia changes the story to being about Russia. It changes the idea too much. Not what the OP was intending.

I guess the core question is about whether the nuclear weaponry of the UK and France are significant and effective.

dagul · Nov 14, 2012

gregorian said:
Well throwing in Russia changes the story to being about Russia. It changes the idea too much. Not what the OP was intending.

I guess the core question is about whether the nuclear weaponry of the UK and France are significant and effective.

I see. It is most probably the significance of their nukes and not necessarily the whole of European powers like Russia.

dagul · Nov 14, 2012

Stephy said:
Part of it is, but how many of the missiles are? Probably more than half I guess.

The larger territory of Russia is in Asia, but, its capital and populated cities are in Europe, and culturally they're Europeans.

Naomasa298 · Nov 14, 2012

The UK nuclear arsenal is carried by Trident missiles supplied by... the US.

AlpinLuke · Nov 14, 2012

Naomasa298 said:
The UK nuclear arsenal is carried by Trident missiles supplied by... the US.

So imagine if they are not able to intercept them. But sometime Americans are surprising ...

AlpinLuke · Nov 14, 2012

gregorian said:
Well throwing in Russia changes the story to being about Russia. It changes the idea too much. Not what the OP was intending.

I guess the core question is about whether the nuclear weaponry of the UK and France are significant and effective.

They are indeed significant and effective [like we can expect to be a couple of nuclear arsenals with decades of experimentation and development]. This is out of doubt.

The doubt is the confrontation with US, who are [theoretically, since our luck is that we have never seen a nuclear war on large scale so far] ready to face a nuclear enemy of the dimensions and capability of USSR, now Russia.

Iolo · Nov 14, 2012

bartieboy said:
These are nuclear bombs that we are talking about.... A few submarines could take out the entire city of new York.

So I gues it depends on your definition of very little.

You think those flabs are really going to engage in nuclear war? Come ON!

Search

Search

Atomic war between Us and Europe

The merchant of Venice

Iolo

astafjevs

bartieboy

Spartacuss

Ancientgeezer

astafjevs

AlpinLuke

gregorian

Ancientgeezer

dagul

Spartacuss

Stephy

gregorian

dagul

dagul

Naomasa298

AlpinLuke

AlpinLuke

Iolo

More History Discussions

Recent History Discussions

Trending History Discussions