The Admiral also said the rebel controlled area included a submarine base. I would assume such a base is either on the peninsula or darn close to it. The admiral also stated they captured a base at Artem. That's just north of the city. These facilities, of course, might not exist as such in reality, but in the film it seems clear they intended the rebels to be entreched in a populated area. 10 missiles and dozens of warheads are going to cause catastrophic damage in there.
You're making some assumptions there that are not in evidence to support a predetermined scenario that does not make sense in the movie rather than looking objectively at the situation and address it in terms that DOES make sense.
So what do we know of the rebels position.
We know they control an area in
and around Vladivostok This includes at least one missile field, a sub base, and another base at Artem.
You are presuming these things are all in a single location or at the least all in very close proximity to each other.
That presumption is false.
The rebels control a region, not a pinpoint location.
The Sub Base is in Vladivostok.
Artem is about 20 miles north, Where the peninsula that holds Vladivostok meets the mainland.
The Base near Artem is a military Airbase. Fighter interceptors, bombers and recon aircraft and the like. Badgers, Bears, and Backfires. Flankers, Fulcrums.
The nearest Missile fields I have already PROVEN are over 500 miles away. which by Siberian standards, is practically next door.
But 500 is still 500 regardless of subjectivity.
The rebels don't likely physically occupy all the 500 miles between those locations, but they do control them.
The US Missiles would be targeted on the Rebel missiles, not all the rebel positions. Their job is not to take out the rebels, but to take out the missile threat. So the US Missiles would ONLY be targeted on the missile field over 500 miles away.
Striking said area, would kill many many Russian civilians. If the Alabama struck an area like that, and it turned out the rebels had already surrendered, you'd be damn sure the Russians would see it as an opportunistic first strike, and retaliate with everything they have out of fear of a subsequent and more comprehensive strike package.
Again, the target locations of the US Missiles were NOWHERE NEAR any population centers. And we are not discussing what would happen if we struck AFTER the rebels surrendered. They discuss that in the film as being a very bad thing. We are discussing hitting them at all. Not just after the surrender. The OP was discussing that he thought the Russians would retaliate against any US strike even if the rebels had not surrendered.
Even if the rebels weren't in a civilian area, destroying valuable military assets like a nuclear missile base and a naval base would certainly invite an immediate general counter-attack.
Wrong again.
The Naval Base and the Missile base are two completely separate things for one. And the Naval base was not targeted.
Secondly. The Russians, for all their being the opposing side of the US for most of the last century, and not stupid or completely without feelings. Corrupt as their system may be, they are human beings and not evil personified. They are not going to allow their own weapons of mass destruction to be used against an innocent people allowing millions to die. If they cannot stop the rebels themselves, they would invite the US to strike the site and destroy them. Though the Film does not mention it specifically, it stands to reason that the US strike would have been coordinated with the Russian.
I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!
reply
share
kakin-1
11 years ago
I always find this kind of discussions interesting. There is maybe to many what-ifs, but I like it.
You are absolutely right. The Alabama will target the missile base. It also explain why they would be needed the 10 missiles (probably Trident II) with 80 warheads. Missile bases are very dispersed and very well protected and you need a lot of warheads to ensure the destruction.
Exact positions of the silos are of course very well known - probably for decades.
But that brings another goof and maybe the loophole. Missile base is in the remote area. Landing 80 warheads won't cause much destruction and loss of life. Ok there would be 80 warheads times 3 or 4, because as Hunter says, there are backup subs that will all get same order, and probably all of them will launch 10 missiles. But this missiles will land at roughly the same place (CEP around 100 meters) so it won't cause much additional destruction. And loses would be mostly rebels, some civilians that lives in the area and some regular military or special forces that are fighting the rebels. Let's say 5000-10000 people.
This brings another question - why would Russia retaliate with full nuclear strike on US just because US warheads destroyed their missile base within couple of hours from surrendering of the rebels ?
Russians are not stupid when it comes to nuclear war (contrary to the popular opinion). They know what is in stake for the US - one nuke over Washington or New York will create huge destruction and loss of life. They know that the flow of information to subs is not perfect - they have SSBN-s also. They know that rebels had control over few attack subs. They know that missiles have been fueled. The investigation can show all the details of the incident.
And finally - the very people that will have to give the 'launch full nuclear strike' order from the Russian side - the political elite - are the people that have the most to lose. Everybody knows what full nuclear exchange brings - total fall of government and situation similar to the Dark Ages where kings were not that powerful and mostly had to beg and bribe local nobles for taxes and soldiers. This very people that have to push the “nuke button” will lose most of their power they now had.
No, they will not retaliate - they will suck up the loss of one missile base (it's not like that is their only one) with obsolete liquid fueled missiles (probably R-036 or UR-100N – I think there is a goof in Goofs section regarding this as Russia still have liquid fueled missiles in inventory). They will also suck up loss of few thousand lives and have diplomacy work it out.
Hunter should have known this – with all of his broad “I explain Clausewitz at will” education. Ramsey should also know this, as well as many of the other officers. They should be talking about this at dinners. For them as professionals all of this should be common knowledge. Of course, this story is not 100% foolproof. Launching nukes in anger is basically playing with matches while standing in the pool full of gasoline (as Carl Sagan said). But, giving the statements, as Hunter has repeatedly done (to Vossler or Weps for example), that launching the nukes in this situation will automatically and undeniably result in nuclear holocaust is much of the overstatement and all involved should know it.
But all of that can go in general goofs section as too complex to explain to the average viewer together with: no SSBN will go on such patrol without some attack subs in escort, there is many radios on SSBN so there is practically no way sub will lost contact with as they have backups for backup’s backups etc. etc.
But, anyway I always liked this movie regardless of the goofs. I am a sucker for sub movies, but this one is so very well done that you can really look away even from large loopholes.
reply
share
CGSailor
11 years ago
This brings another question - why would Russia retaliate with full nuclear strike on US just because US warheads destroyed their missile base within couple of hours from surrendering of the rebels ?
Russians are not stupid when it comes to nuclear war (contrary to the popular opinion). They know what is in stake for the US - one nuke over Washington or New York will create huge destruction and loss of life. They know that the flow of information to subs is not perfect
There may be a window of a few (5-10) minutes where that would be POSSIBLY true.
But it is not the certainty you claim nor would it be at all after a longer period of time has elapsed.
they would have understood the attack and bear it if the US attacked the rebels before they surrendered and was attempting to launch on the US.
But destroying the missile field well after the rebels surrendered and were no longer a threat, once the missiles were back in Russian hands and that fact was communicated to Washington. Once more time than the flight time of the missiles had elapsed would indicated to the Russians the order to launch was given AFTER Washington had been told the missiles were no longer a threat.
They would have made a retaliatory launch. All out Nuclear war.
You presume too much as to what would happen. Too much what-if.
Hunter should have known this – with all of his broad “I explain Clausewitz at will” education. Ramsey should also know this, as well as many of the other officers. They should be talking about this at dinners. For them as professionals all of this should be common knowledge.
They should have known what you incorrectly thought up?
No.
no SSBN will go on such patrol without some attack subs in escort
Our SSBN subs are on patrol without SSN escorts all the time.
Our SSBNs are vulnerable during the period shortly after leaving port Before they have a chance to submerge. And those ports are very few in number(2).
It would be easy for the bad guys to put their SSN in a position to monitor our SSBNs leaving port, and pick up tracking them from there. Our SSN's will monitor and protect those areas for the SSBNs, but once submerged and the area around them cleared, the SSN does not continue to patrol with the SSBN but goes on it's own missions. Good reasons for it too.
1) Our SSBNs are far more quiet than our SSNs. If the SSN could be tracked to staking out and patrolling an otherwise empty patch of ocean, that would give away than it is an SSBN patrol zone and there would be an SSBN nearby.
2) The subs are not perfectly quiet and the more you have in a given spot, the more likely one or the other will be detected, not to mention the decidedly unstealthy communications requirements needed for both subs to coordinate with each other. That's why we train our crew to operate completely alone and independent.
I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!
reply
share
kakin-1
11 years ago
There may be a window of a few (5-10) minutes where that would be POSSIBLY true.
But it is not the certainty you claim nor would it be at all after a longer period of time has elapsed.
they would have understood the attack and bear it if the US attacked the rebels before they surrendered and was attempting to launch on the US.
But destroying the missile field well after the rebels surrendered and were no longer a threat, once the missiles were back in Russian hands and that fact was communicated to Washington. Once more time than the flight time of the missiles had elapsed would indicated to the Russians the order to launch was given AFTER Washington had been told the missiles were no longer a threat.
They would have made a retaliatory launch. All out Nuclear war.
You presume too much as to what would happen. Too much what-if.
It seems that we are disagreeing about what time window would be acceptable. In my opinion even 1-3 hours would be acceptable. I think that here you are somewhat oversimplifying things with classical Cold War scenario that everybody is watching screens and are ready to launch on first blip on the screen. On the side note, scary thing is that for the most of the Cold War things weren’t that much different.
But, this would be 1995. somewhat after the height of the Cold War. Nuclear attack on rebel bases would most surely be announced to Russians well in advance, red lines would be constantly opened, and Russians would be informed about initial launch order (first EAM) probably before subs commanders. Because, how would Russians know that launched missiles would land ONLY on the rebel base. As you probably know, the satellites are good at detecting launch and launch location. But the targets can be estimated much later by complex radars and even then that is not very exact science – especially with decoys and penetration aids, and the state of Russian military at that time.
Alabama and other backup SSBNs would try to approach the Vladivostok area much closer than usual to maximally shorten the missiles flight time – possibly to 5 minutes or less. So basically Russians can only trust that US would not try to take the advantage of the situation and take chance to cripple the old Cold War opponent.
And giving the state of Russian (or Soviet) officials and their views of the US, especially during the 80s, that would require great leap of faith from the Russian side. Movie obviously assumes that would not be an issue and that US can freely nuke the rebel missile base without fear of further consequences if rebels show signs of impending launch. And that assumption implies that there are some levels of mutual trust or even cooperation between Russia and the US – at least for the duration of the crisis.
And that level of trust, that is implied but must exist for the movie scenario to be plausible, also implies that Russians wouldn’t be on the hair trigger nuclear alert. US would probably inform Russians about mistaken launch from Alabama through the red line even before missiles would have landed on targets. Russians wouldn’t be having any time to launch their missiles before first explosions and they would be able to confirm that missiles were targeted only on the rebel base and that this is not sneak attack.
Not that the Russians would be having much options during 5 minutes of decision (missile flight) time from Alabama. If US are making sneak attack they will lose most of their fixed nuclear assets – assets that are the most precise and can be used us counterforce weapons. Mobile launchers and subs are only useful for retaliatory strikes against the cities, and their air force would be mostly useless. It is questionable if they could even launch silo based missiles in such a short time.
And finally – the Russian’s Strategic Rocket Forces was having 28 (twenty-eight) missile bases by the end of 80s. Probably, not much less in 1995. when movie is taking place.
And the US is making attack on them – by launching 10 missiles from one submarine !?!
Similar argument was cited by Stanislav Petrov (google him), duty officer on Soviet early-warning system, when he judged that satellite report of 5 incoming missiles from the US was false alarm and failed to raise the alert. And that was in 1983. at the height of the Cold War just few weeks after Korean Air Lines Flight 007 incident.
Our SSBN subs are on patrol without SSN escorts all the time.
Yes you are probably right about that. I found that other nations are usually escorting their SSBNs but not for the US.
It makes sense for the US not to escort their boomers on usual patrols.
But in this case it would make sense for the Alabama to be escorted since adversary was just the rebels that are having several attack subs but not access to the satellites, spy ships, air reconnaissance, intelligence etc. Of course this escort doesn’t mean riding side by side. And of course subs are very very rarely engage in mutual communication. But having several attack subs in the vicinity of few dozen miles from SSBN wouldn’t put Alabama in much more danger and would form an effective picket that would probably catch rebel subs. SSBNs aren’t really even match for the modern attack sub.
reply
share
CGSailor
11 years ago
WOW!
You are just all over the map aren't you?
It's like you're throwing ideas at the wall just to see what sticks.
Half your points actually agree with me. Yet you present them as though you are countering something I said (you aren't, not with those points)
Other points you are trying to make are contrary to and invalidate your main point.
The rest are just plain wrong.
It seems that we are disagreeing about what time window would be acceptable. In my opinion even 1-3 hours would be acceptable. I think that here you are somewhat oversimplifying things with classical Cold War scenario that everybody is watching screens and are ready to launch on first blip on the screen.
Nothing has changed on monitoring against potential attack just because the cold war ended. NORAD still functions as early warning against potential Nuclear strike and The Russian Federation still monitors their former Soviet Union counterpart.
For you to presume this is no more simply because of the cold war being over is in error.
But, this would be 1995. somewhat after the height of the Cold War.
And?... As I stated, they are still monitoring against nuclear strikes. As are we.
Nuclear attack on rebel bases would most surely be announced to Russians well in advance, red lines would be constantly opened, and Russians would be informed about initial launch order (first EAM) probably before subs commanders. Because, how would Russians know that launched missiles would land ONLY on the rebel base. As you probably know, the satellites are good at detecting launch and launch location. But the targets can be estimated much later by complex radars and even then that is not very exact science
And here you are stating what I said. I said the US would be in contact with the Legitimate Russian government, would give them warning of the launch as well as where the targets are.
And giving the state of Russian (or Soviet) officials and their views of the US, especially during the 80s, that would require great leap of faith from the Russian side.
You've already stated the film was AFTER the cold war and set in the 90's, not the 80's. You are contradicting yourself.
Alabama and other backup SSBNs would try to approach the Vladivostok area much closer than usual to maximally shorten the missiles flight time – possibly to 5 minutes or less.
Wrong.
The US would not risk strategic deterrence assets so close to hostile territory.
And we KNOW where the patrol area is for Alabama and it is NOT in the Sea of Okhotsk, or the Sea of Japan.
During the briefing they stated that their patrol area is near the Emperor Seamounts.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/graphics/Pacific_basin.gifMid Pacific.
This still cuts the missile flight time to about 10 minutes or less.
And finally – the Russian’s Strategic Rocket Forces was having 28 (twenty-eight) missile bases by the end of 80s. Probably, not much less in 1995. when movie is taking place.
And the US is making attack on them – by launching 10 missiles from one submarine !?!
1) We were not attacking all the Russian missile bases, ONLY the one held by the rebels and preparing to launch on the United States. And you forget that the 10 US Missiles are MIRV capable missiles with 8 warheads each.
That's 80 nuclear warheads dropping onto a single base with multiple warheads independently targeting each missile silo on the base.
Similar argument was cited by Stanislav Petrov
Just what argument is that? Your "argument" is all over the map and without direction. I am having a hard time figuring out just what your point is.
At no point however, is the above case of Petrov's have anything to do with what we are discussing. That is about how the Soviets CORRECTLY did not respond to a false alarm. And that bears NOTHING on the argument before us.
Yes you are probably right about that(SSBN's patrolling without SSN escort).
Only probably?
I AM right about that. Nothing "probable" about it.
But in this case it would make sense for the Alabama to be escorted since adversary was just the rebels that are having several attack subs but not access to the satellites, spy ships, air reconnaissance, intelligence etc. Of course this escort doesn’t mean riding side by side. And of course subs are very very rarely engage in mutual communication. But having several attack subs in the vicinity of few dozen miles from SSBN wouldn’t put Alabama in much more danger and would form an effective picket that would probably catch rebel subs
[FACEPALM]
Another armchair wannabe admiral lecturing a
Naval Veteran on Naval tactics.
And getting it all wrong of course.
Just.... stop.
Thanks.
I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!
reply
share
kakin-1
11 years ago
Half your points actually agree with me. Yet you present them as though you are countering something I said (you aren't, not with those points)
I see that you haven't read my first post again to link up. SO here to sum-up
I said:
This brings another question - why would Russia retaliate with full nuclear strike on US just because US warheads destroyed their missile base within couple of hours from surrendering of the rebels ?
You said:
There may be a window of a few (5-10) minutes where that would be POSSIBLY true.
But it is not the certainty you claim nor would it be at all after a longer period of time has elapsed.
And I don't agree with you, especialy with:
But destroying the missile field well after the rebels surrendered and were no longer a threat, once the missiles were back in Russian hands and that fact was communicated to Washington. Once more time than the flight time of the missiles had elapsed would indicated to the Russians the order to launch was given AFTER Washington had been told the missiles were no longer a threat.
They would have made a retaliatory launch. All out Nuclear war.
All what I have wrote is my try to explain why I think that Russia would not retaliate immediately and that there would be time window of several hours within which diplomacy could (rather easily) avert the nuclear holocaust. You claim (if I understood you correctly) that this time window would be at most 10 minutes.
In the movie Hunter had several times used this argument similar to yours (bolded part) to convince some reluctant crew members to comply with him and not with Ramsey. While with Vossler this might make sense as a motivator to bring radio online, but with Weps this would be a moot argument although Hunter says it very clearly:
Don't do this Weps, once we launch, they cannot come back. They cannot come back Weps, and you know the repercussions if we're wrong, goddamnit.
I claim that at least all senior officers should know that all out nuclear exchange wouldn't be very likely if they fire on the rebel missile base even if rebels surrendered (within timeframe of few hours). At the same time, reverse error (they didn’t launch and rebels launched their missiles) would mean one or several of the US cities incinerated. OK, there is an argument about backup subs, but again there is the weight of several hundred thousands of US citizens’ lives against very low probability of nuclear war.
The original poster also makes argument about Hunter pulling nuclear war card one to many times. But I don’t agree with his other arguments so I wrote my view of the things.
We can even calculate the possible launch time between time of the second (interrupted) EAM and time when Ramsey says “fire one” and presses the trigger. I don’t have the movie right now with me but I think this is not more than hour and 10 minutes (presuming real time of the movie during that part). Of course, if Hunter hadn’t intervened at the first place the missiles could be launched somewhat earlier. Well within what I think is the time frame where nuclear war could be averted in the case of mistake.
[FACEPALM]
Another armchair wannabe admiral lecturing a Naval Veteran on Naval tactics.
And getting it all wrong of course.
Just.... stop.
Thanks.
Sorry about that, I din't know that you have served as an officer aboard subs.
reply
share