u got ur info from the cold war military history didnt u? but htere it also says that the SS18 could destroy 80% of the US ICBMs targeting 2 (yes 2) warheads against each silo. Even after that the Soviets would have had nearly 100 SS 18 missiles (1000 warheads)left, which was enough to destroy the rest of the US ICBM's as well as France's and China's ones. After this the SS 19 and SS 17 plus the Soviet subs would level the cities-in other words the SS 18 would single handedly destroy most of the west's nuclear potential (except Ohios obviously)

What do you think would have been the effectiveness of an all-out Soviet nuclear attack vs. America is it were to use the following: ICBM (Anything in arsenal) Nuclear Depth Charges/Torpedoes/Naval Mines/Bombs (Dropped from Hormones, Mays or Hazes) Free Fall Nukes (Delivered from Foxbats, Fencers, Backfires or Bears) Submarine-launched nukes (From Typhoons) How much of the attack do you think the Americans would have been able to counter and how much counterattack capability would they have remaining? Would there be much submarine-attack capability remaining after the usage of nuclear depth charges?

Yes I did research those numbers, I must, my memory isn't all that great any more.Besides if you pull #'s out of your butt on this board someone will call you on it.I did get some basic training on deterents theory,threats and Nuclear Arms Control when I was in the Army.Since I had not completed my tour overseas when the 4th ID redeployed back to Ft. Carson, in 1970, the Army graciously sent me on to a unit attached to the 56th Artillery Brigade in Europe.We were security for the Pershings.1 CCCP could not have detroyed all of French and British nukes with SS-18s because they also had SLBMs.2"The rest of the US ICBMs" would be on the way.You would hit empty silos.Depending on what year that means you have 200 ICBM missles with at least 3 warheads a piece coming your way.Thats with your 80% success rate. And then there are the Ohios.Rubble is rubble,no difference if it bounces three times or ten times.

The Window of Vulnerability was a Nuclear War fighting scenario that I never believed realistic.1 Total Surprise had to be achieved to prevent Launch on Warning.To do this you cannot disperse other Military forces to save them from a strike.2 I do not believe that the technology on both sides had avanced far enough to give either side the confidence to achieve the accu

Sorry I clicked the wrong button.The Window of Vulnerability is a Nuclear War fighting scenario I never believed realistic.1 Total Surprise had to be achieved to prevent Launch on Warning.This made all your other forces vulnerable to a strike and still did not assure you that you would not get a Launch on Warning.2I do not believe the technology on either side would provide the desired results from a first strike at anothers ICBM fields.3If the nation that is struck does not follow the script exactly there will be no winner only a world of losers.4 Again any time the struck nation decides to go MAD there will be no winner.6 Its a hypothetical war plan that there would be so much antipathy for in the government that is contemplating it, that it would never get the required support. Got to go, Part 2 in a little while.

I was just quoting numbers. I didnt say that they meant for anything. And i didnt say that the Soviets would attack first. Wwhat about the US striking first?

Oh yes. And what about pin down, ey? 'Yankees' launching their missiles so as to destroy the ICBMs as they were lifitng off? Just another possiblity. I am too young to argue with you, but i did my research from US and UK, not russian sources.

Do you mean a Window of Vulnerability style attack.Never say never, but the US would not have attemted that type of strike on an nation as powerful as the CCCP. There were some plans to use tactical nukes on Warsaw pact reserves if things started to go very badly for NATO in a Warsaw Pact attack on NATO.I don't know if they would have used them though.They definitly would have been used in response to a Soviet first use.

I think that although Soviet doctrine gave Rocket Troops (fancy name for nuclear forces) highest priority in their armed forcs, they didnt really evr come close to launching their birds as is shown in so many Hollywood movies full of trigger happy russian generals.

Pin down could work but not with Yankee Class they usually had an American Tail on them and most probably would not get but a few missiles off before they would be engaged.Also as active as they would have to be, to cover all the American ICBM fields, would alert the US.I believe 1 US Submarine tailed a Yankee Class for 69 days without being detected.The other thing to consider is that to use The Window of Vulnerability plan you must retain and keep back a significant second strike capability.