Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular
World War Three seen through Soviet eyes
telegraph.co.uk — In a historic break with the past, Poland's newly elected government threw open its top secret Warsaw Pact military archives - including a 1979 map revealing the Soviet bloc's vision of a seven-day atomic holocaust between NATO and Warsaw Pact forces.
mc7winkie- 954 diggs
- digg it
- trollenlord, on 10/12/2007, -18/+3"Soviet bombs rain down on cities from northern Denmark down to Brussels, the political headquarters of Nato. Large red clouds blot out cities such as Hamburg, Frankfurt, Stuttgart, Munich and Baden Baden, Haarlem, Antwerp and Charleroi, above the Franco-Belgian border."
- weirdness, on 10/12/2007, -5/+29It's paragraph seven Did I win something?
- webcrumb, on 10/12/2007, -7/+7I win! Only 22m dead!
Wait, that's Defcon... - mc7winkie, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Dude, DEFCON is one of the best budget ware games out there.
- montiff, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'd love to see more of these war game maps. Please submit them!
- thefutureisours, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15cool! Nato wins 10-9.
- vaguelyrandom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Nah, they missed of the London bomb for the draw - surely they would have hit it as you pretty much take out the UK when you do.
Perhaps i've just got some kind of twisted nuclear war inferiority complex going on (I live in London:). - Calypsoaf, on 10/12/2007, -9/+5I'm pretty sure London wasn't there because the Soviets were smart and knew they could probably never get a plane that far (this was prior to missle nukes, so all had to be delivered either by air or vehicle).
- BabyWookie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12The article said that the map was from the time of the Carter administration, when the Soviets had huge numbers of ICBMs.
- anachronaut, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8@ Calypsoaf
Unless I'm missing something, the map which was "missing" London was from 1979, as stated in the article. Surely you're not claiming that the USSR didn't have ICBMs at that time...?
*edit* BabyWookie beat me to it, but the point stands. - MSTK, on 10/12/2007, -8/+7I wouldn't trust the map. It's obviously fake. If it was in the Polish Archives then why is it written in English?
- RRJackson, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Fascinating reading, especially the chapter on myths about nuclear warfare:
http://www.oism.org/nwss/s73p904.htm
Nuclear War Survival Skills
Original Edition Published September, 1979
by Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
a Facility of the
U.S. Department of Energy - Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16Hey, if English was good enough for Jesus, it is good enough for the Soviet war machine.
- vaguelyrandom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Nah, they missed of the London bomb for the draw - surely they would have hit it as you pretty much take out the UK when you do.
- dliu4, on 10/12/2007, -12/+1aw Amsterdam gets blown up it'll create a huge fire with all the pot there.
Always wanted to try radiated pot. - BadassCheese, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Thats ***** crazy. +digg
- yubpro, on 10/12/2007, -7/+7their tactics seem to not be following a MAD outline,
as they planned on not decimating either france or britain.
...just using the nuclear strikes as a way of securing a front between eastern and western europe.- durzagott, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14I thought that too at first but, from the article: "Perhaps because the map shows a limited war game exercise, entitled Seven Days to the River Rhine, rather than full invasion plans, troops stop at the Rhine, and there are no attacks or bomb strikes on Britain, or on France."
- jamessavik, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9MAD was never a doctrine. MAD is what happens with a massive exchange of strategic nukes: both sides eliminate each other.
Both sides planned for nukes to be used only as a last resort because the potential for esculation was ruinious.
This is why both sides moved away from small, tactical nuclear weapons- and why its so scary that the current administration has decided to build them once again.
- mrloco, on 10/12/2007, -9/+1Come on.... this is from over a year ago.
- jamessavik, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22Those big, dirty warheads that the Soviets used would have made central europe a uninhabitable graveyard for a millinia.
France and the UK, while not nuked directly, would fair only marginally better in the fallout: untouched but dying slowly and uninhabitable.
To those of us that grew up during the Cold War, this was the great nightmare of our time.- Jugalator, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8"Those big, dirty warheads that the Soviets used"
As opposed to which kind of nuke? Or are you talking about something else than nukes despite the article? - jamessavik, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15There are a number of different kinds of nuclear weapons.
Most US designs are simple plutonium implosion devices with yields in the kiloton range. They are designed to create as little fallout as possible.
Hydrogen bombs have yields in the mega-ton range. They are the city-killers: big, highly radioactive civilization enders. The Soviets used them because their missiles weren't very accurate. - BabyWookie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Hydrogen bombs don't really have to be highly radioactive. In fact, the biggest bomb to have ever been tested, known as Tzar Bomba, produced very little radiation. Of course, that was only because they removed the 3rd stage of the device, which reduced its yield by 50% and made it a lot "cleaner", even though it was still a 50 megaton explosion.
- wwjdwwmd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tzar_Bomba
- shank2001, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Actually hydrogen fusion nukes are much cleaner than fission nukes. And the USA had just as many of them as the Soviets had.
- idonthack, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@BabyWookie
Actually the Tsar Bomba produced the most radioactive material of any bomb ever exploded. It was just very efficient, and produced the lowest ratio of radioactive material to yield. - BESTenemy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Production of the radioactive material depends highly on how close above the ground the nuke is detonated. Most bombs tested were either dropped off airplanes with altimeter set to explode few meters above the ground or were set up on top of support structures. That way the resonating effect of the shockwave increases and the nuclear material itself has a chance to react fully, unlike with the kind of bomb that works on direct impact. Those produce less of a wake, but more radioactive polution. Design of the bomb is also important - the deflector shell, for instance, was removed during the test of Tzar Bomb to reduce the amount of particle being deflected back into the core. If the shell was present, the explosion would've been twice as powerful with half the radiation output.
The material used in a bomb also determines the polution and the recovery rate of the devastated are, but that's been roughly covered by the comments made so far, so I'm not going to repeat them.
- Jugalator, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8"Those big, dirty warheads that the Soviets used"
- Sundownvf111, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3boom headshot!
- webcrumb, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Rather, "Boom! Countryshot!"
- avsa, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8The map shown is clealy a contemporary rendering, as seen by the style. It´s all a clean illustrator map. I wish to see the original.
- BabyWookie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Plus, I'm pretty sure the Warsaw Pact wouldn't label their nuclear strike illustrations in English. :)
- cmajewski, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I find this map pretty interesting but also pretty rudimentary. It's a small-scale Eastern European theater tactical nuclear strike map...but one that is not very complex. Come on, show is the good stuff...
- mclumber1, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2"As opposed to which kind of nuke? Or are you talking about something else than nukes despite the article?"
Soviet and American bombs differed in many ways, mostly in yield and accuracy. Soviet leadership knew that American missiles and bombs were much more precise, so they could use smaller bombs. The Soviets didn't have very accurate missiles, so they had to depend on much larger warheads to make up for the missiles inaccuracy. In general, the larger the bomb, the greater the fallout. But their are a lot of other factors that will affect fallout.
As I understand it, Soviet bomb designs were not only large, but fairly innefficient. They needed more plutonium to get the same yeild as a comparable American bomb - leading to a release of more unused nuclear material, therefor, more fallout.
Also fallout will be greater if the bomb is detonated on or near the ground - all of the dirt and debris that is thrown up in the explosion will become activated and increase the fallout. An airblast will irradiate less material. Most cities and light infrastructure is bombed using air blasts, which will devastate a larger area. A surface or subsurface blast is used to destroy military installations such as missile silos and underground bunkers. - lysdexia, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4As if it matters what kind of ***** nuke they would drop. And what does it matter if the map is current or even accurate?
***** all is what it matters, because the nukes are there today, ready and waiting for some nutter to unleash them. And, inevitably, they will. The history of mankind shows that we (someone, somewhere) always use the deadliest weaponry eventually. Every single time. No exceptions.
We all accept that if it started the Russians and the US would annihilate the world. The global death would just be a little swifter if China, Korea, Israel, India, France, Pakistan, South Africa and the rest joined in. As if they need the planes alone - do any think that perhaps those monumentally murderous submarine fleets would likely become tree-hugging peaceniks if it kicked off?
Here's a simple truth - any person who thinks a limited nuclear war can be won is clearly off their ***** head and as such should not be in charge of nuclear weapons.- RRJackson, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1@lysdexia
Haven't you seen those films from the 50's of the United States detonating warhead after warhead above-ground? Boom! There goes an island. Boom! There goes a little pretend town. Boom! There go some pigs. Detonation after detonation for decades. Then underground detonations over and over again. I was flying into Vegas once back at the end of that period and my PDA (an early Psion) was erased at exactly the moment of the test. It never blanked its memory any other time. People swore it couldn't have been related to the detonation, but I digress.
Anyway, there were bad things that happened as a result of those tests. People downwind got way more rads than they should have ever had to deal with and a lot of people got sick or died. But the southwestern United States is pretty much intact. South Pacific, too. And Japan, for that matter. Godzilla never climbed out of the ocean and headed for Tokyo.
I don't think anyone wants to see a nuclear exchange, but people have to stop using the words, 'nulcear' and 'holocaust' in the same sentence. Except Lewis Black and that's only because he puts '*****' between them. Heh... - idonthack, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21. When you shoot nuclear weapons at people, they die. Lots of them at a time.
2. Lasting radiation (mostly from fallout, more at ground zero) will kill you.
3. The desert doesn't produce much fallout, because there's nothing there. A nuke in a city would convert all of that city's mass into radioactive dust.
4. Fallout will kill crops.
Nuclear holocaust is a very real possibility, if someone goes trigger happy with the silos. Even if the direct death toll is small, anarchy and famine will ensue. - RRJackson, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Worth reading:
http://www.oism.org/nwss/s73p912.htm
The "lasting radiation" and fallout from a city aren't nearly the terrors they're portrayed as being. The United States wouldn't suddenly become an infertile wasteland. I don't think anyone really wants to see a nuclear exchange take place, but it's not the Dr. Strangelove scenario that everyone likes to imagine.
The time may come when nuclear weapons are used again. We need to educate people in the real dangers so they don't become hysterical at a time when clear thinking is a necessity. The death toll could be much lower if people realize the dangers and know how to minimize their exposure to them, but if they think there's no chance of survival they very well may act in ways that cost them their own lives and the lives of those they care about.
- RRJackson, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1@lysdexia
- foolfromhell, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6So..... Poland gets ***** again?
- RRJackson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3A friend of mine looked at that map and said, "Poland is the Rodney Dangerfield of countries."
- MASTERPL, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Talk about poor placement.
- rafal_m, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1yeah
- idonthack, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Ahh, the Polish. Always in the way.
- jamessavik, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Poland used to be Prussia and their calvary was hell on the hoof...
They weren't really a pushover until Hitler ran over them with tanks and then the Soviets sat on them for 50 years.
- int3, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@RRJackson
Absolute rubbish. Your PDAs memory was trashed, yet the the avionics of the plane you were travelling on were fine? Whatever.- RRJackson, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@int3
Well, exactly. That was the only time my PDA ever blanked, though. Everyone I told about it pretty much gave me the same line of reasoning you just did, but it's still the only time it ever failed on me. I have no empirical evidence to back up my suspicion, but I'll bet there was some component in that Psion that was particularly susceptible to electro-magnetism and it failed.
- RRJackson, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@int3
- igbw, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2The idea of a limited nuclear exchange between NATO and the old Warsaw Pack is an absolute farce. Once the bombs start falling time(assuming the last thing you see isn't a blinding white flash) you best dig your Morlock costume out the shelter and look out for Dr. Zeus and evil invading horde of monkeys.
- bioskope, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1pol pot's prison cell pics, saddam's execution video and now world war 3. Thank you digg for 1.future nightmares 2.never wanting to take even 'staying alive' for granted
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by