A thoughtful analysis, and correct to direct viewers to Threads, but I have to strongly disagree with the assessment that the nuclear exchange would be limited. No strategy nor response was geared toward a limited strike capacity. I site only the persistent, though unofficial doctrine of "mutual assured destruction" as laid out by U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara (in his own words in "Fog of War" and many other resources).
Look, it isn't as if they WANTED a full scale nuclear exchange, nor even that the military planners and Generals desired anything but survivability. I am not demonizing them or exaggerating my case. But the build-up in defensive and first-strike technology in the service of "deterrence" (extensive radar and satellite sensing / policies to get the ICBMs airborn before Soviet or American missiles could eliminate those facilities, etc.) made a limited strike impossible. The missiles, wholesale, would be out of the ground before the first explosion. And that would be the ballgame. There was no mechanism by which to "turn it off" as it was never meant to be fought in the first place.
And PLEASE don't forget the development and deployment of Soviet and U.S. SLBMs, or submarine-launched missiles, in the 1970s and 1980s. They played endless games off the coast and reduced the response time for Washington D.C. to virtually minutes, so total commitment was necessary before the leadership could even know what was going on.
Nuclear was in the 1980s meant TOTAL war. I want to clarify that I mean between the Soviets and the U.S. in the 1980s. All other scenarios are different. A war between nuclear armed India and Pakistan would look very much like the limited war which you describe, similarly, a superpower war with missiles in the early 1960s. China was a wild card--but all other nuclear weapons were deployed in the service of NATO and Warsaw.
reply
share
artisticengineer
15 years ago
Interesting that you mention Robert McNamara in your rebuttal to "limited nuclear war" as he was one of the original proponents of that concept in the 1960s. Anyway, certainly the U.S. could launch an immediate massive first strike if it were deemed necessary, but that was the most UNlikely scenario; particularly as late as the 1980s. Your mention of there being no mechanism to "turn it off" (presuming missile launches) is interesting as such a mechanism was not needed as the launches would only come about as necessary ("turned on" only as needed).
Most likely the U.S. would NOT have fired ICBMs until the strike of enemy missiles was verified. The ICBMs were set up to survive all but a direct hit from an incoming warhead. An enemy first strike would not take out all the ICBMs and the SLBMs would still be intact as they were under water and hidden. So the enemy would not even know where the SLBMs were located; how could they take them out?? Some of our bombers would be taken out by a first strike but not many. Some were on ground alert, in the middle of our country, so even an enemy SLBM strike would not get to them before the alert bombers were out of range of those missiles. Also, it is likely that prior to an actual attack we would have put bombers back on airborne alert. These would also be immune from a missile strike.
Most likely scenario was a conventional war between NATO and Warsaw Pact forces with the Warsaw Pact pushing into Central Germany about 50 ~ 200 miles then unable to progress further as NATO defenses were able to concentrate on the lead WP forces. Attack stalls out with WP trying to hold onto new territory, but the NATO counter attacks stiffen. At that point the Premier asks for a cease fire and the President and Prime Ministers say fine, but go back to where you belong. As the situation deteriorates further for the WP they decide to gamble and fire one missile in order to terrify NATO into an immediate agreement so they can hold onto their new territory. Faced with that situation; what would you do? Fire ALL our missiles and guarantee total destruction of everything or retaliate appropriately?
reply
share
Abe_Raman
15 years ago
The point isn't whether this film is realistic or not, although technically it's a melodrama and therefore not realism (and anyway it's laughably unrealistic).
But this board is meant for discussion and development of the proposition that the motion picture Testament is badly scripted, badly acted schmaltz. So go talk about ICBMs and SLBMs somewhere else, there's good boys.
reply
share
Doom
15 years ago
What exactly causes you to claim this film 'badly scripted'? Would love to know that.
And 'badly acted'? You ARE kidding, right? That's so far from the truth that your post immediately gets put into the 'trolling' column.
Testament: poorly acted. Friggin' hilarious. Get a clue.
My guess is you have a problem with the whole 'nuclear' thing in general. Either that or you have never seen (or understood) what good (in this case, incredible - and realistic) acting is in your life.
------
Wait a minute... who am I here?
reply
share
znapper
8 years ago
This is very wrong.
The cold-war doctrine for NATO when it came to a war in Europe, was to fight while retreating (since they would not be able to hold back the WP-forces), until they stood in France, or around there.
At that point NATO would start using tactical nuclear weapons on Soviet forces, effectively making Germany a nuclear battleground.
Every thinking strategist concluded with a full scale nuclear exchange right after, because the Pandora-box would now be open.
reply
share