How A Nuclear Missile Exchange Might Really Turn Out
We’ve all seen movies of nuclear war, and videos of nuclear missile launches from submarines and land-based silos. They are attention riveting and dramatic.
But in the event of a real, shooting, nuclear war with adrenaline pumping and emotions running high, how would a nuclear missile exchange really play out?
Well, recent nuclear missile test launches by the Pentagon’s so-called “Air Force” and the British Navy provide important clues.
On this past November 1, 2023 a test launch of an unarmed Minuteman III nuclear missile from Vandenberg AFB in California had to be “safely terminated” as the missile experienced an “anomaly” over the Pacific Ocean. Mind you, great care is taken with these nuclear missile test launches (sans the nuclear warheads, of course). Weeks, even months, are devoted to preparing for them - - and then the test launch failed, requiring the missile to be “safely terminated,” i.e., destroyed by remote command.
There are 400 Minuteman nuclear missile silos in North America, in the western states.
More recently, on January 30, 2024, the British submarine HMS Vanguard was sailing underwater off the coast of Florida when it test fired a dummy Trident nuclear missile (sans the nuclear warhead). The missile ejected from the launch tube, cleared the surface of the water - - and the first stage failed to ignite, so the entire missile unceremoniously kerplunked right back into the ocean. It was a grand fizzle that went nowhere.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/26070479/trident-nuke-sub-missile-launch-fails/
But this was not the first British nuclear missile fizzle. The previous such test of a submarine-launched Trident missile in 2016, by HMS Vengeance, also resulted in failure. To be more precise:
In June 2016 a Trident 2 blasted out of HMS Vengeance and its rocket boosters successfully ignited. But moments later it veered off course, reportedly towards the US, and automatically self-destructed.
Note well: the Trident missile in 2016 successfully fired from the British submarine, but towards the U$$A, Inc.! Now that raises questions about targeting reliability, does it not?
What This Means In The Real World Of War
As I read these legacy media accounts of failed NATO nuclear missile tests, whether of the silo-based Minuteman III or the submarine-based Trident II missiles, my mind goes right back to a conversation that I had with an ageing Cold Warrior, decades ago. I won’t name him, even many years after his death, because he explicitly warned me never to mention his name publicly. And so I will always honor that agreement. He was a very hospitable, hard-nosed, STEM PhD polymath, genius I.Q. intellect, high-level, MIC man, a consummate insider. Let me just say that he knew his way around Area 51 - and a lot of other places.
Of course, I asked him the obvious questions about E.T.s/UFOs and Area 51. His laconic reply was: “That’s certainly a topic of conversation in the canteen there.”
We talked for a long time, for days, about all sorts of things. Imagine me, a repeat anti-nuclear peace protester with a consequent, long, FBI rap sheet and jail history, engaged in days of conversation with Dr. Strangelove, as it were. Mind you, days of conversation at his express invitation.
We talked for hours. One day, apropos of nothing in particular, he abruptly launched into a monologue about nuclear war. He explained to me what would happen if the sudden order came to launch the nukes, and crews frantically scrambled to fire them off. As he explained it to me:
10% of the missiles would fail to fire; they would be duds. (see above)
An additional 10% would blow up upon ignition of the first stage of the missiles.
A third 10% would blow up due to catastrophic failure of the first stage during the boost phase.
A fourth 10% would veer off course (see above), fail to follow their programmed trajectory and impact at unpredictable locations.
A fifth 10% would fail at staging between the first and second stages.
A sixth 10% would fail when their payload failed to properly separate from the second stage at a sub-orbital altitude, or their nose cone shroud failed to properly jettison.
A seventh 10% would fail when their heat shields malfunctioned on reentry.
An eighth 10% would fail when they reached their GPS detonation coordinates - - and their firing mechanism would go awry and not detonate the warhead.
Of the remaining 20%, an unknown number would be successfully intercepted/shot down by enemy anti-missile defenses, with the rest reaching their targets and detonating.
[Bottom line: military planners know that many of the nuclear missiles that are perpetually waiting in silos and submarines for emergency launch orders will fail when/if those nuclear war launch commands ever do come. (see failures of test firings above)]
Then this man looked at me, and said in a calm, avuncular manner: “If there is a nuclear war, the Human race will survive and go on.”
In truth, no one knows exactly what will happen if the sudden orders are ever given to launch hundreds of nuclear missiles from land-based silos and submarines underway/lurking at sea. Will the nuclear missile crews actually fire hundreds of missiles? Or will they mutiny and disobey the orders on humanitarian/spiritual/moral grounds? Alternatively, if there should happen to be nuclear missile crew mutinies, will they simply be instantly overruled by automatic, fail-safe, A.I. order-of-battle routines that are already in place?
Of course, if the Russians/Chinese/Iranians/North Koreans suddenly detect that 400 nuclear missile silos in the CONUS/U$$A, Inc. have opened up, and scores more in France, Britain and Israel, and have begun firing missiles, they will not wait for 20 minutes to see where the missiles are headed. Similarly, if they see that British/French/Pentagon “boomers” in the Pacific Ocean/Atlantic Ocean/Mediterranean Sea/Indian Ocean, and also Israeli Dolphin submarines, suddenly begin launching many missiles unannounced, one after another without stopping, they equally are not going to wait for 10 or 15 minutes to see where those 100 nuclear missiles are headed.
Their A.I. command systems (all major militaries have A.I. command and control systems) will detect with their satellite sensors that a nuclear exchange has begun, and will instantly spring into action. Of course I am not A.I., but in that event I would expect a massive retaliatory barrage of nuclear missiles from Russia/China/North Korea/Iran against the CONUS/U$$A, Inc./NATO/EU/Israel/South Korea/Japan/Australia.
A.I. will be running the order of battle once nuclear hostilities kick off. It is nonhuman. It will not fight in a humanly predictable way.
As to what happens if the A.I. of one warring side begins to communicate with the A.I. of opposing forces in the fog of war?
I have no clue. Pray that we never find out.
****************************************
You are welcome to share this blog article link with your email lists and any news aggregator websites.
Contact me at: 42mecfi@proton.me for how to donate. I do not have a bank account, so please do not use the Substack paid subscription feature.
If you want human writing, analysis and journalism, I am forthrightly asking for your donation. I urgently need your help. Fake A.I. news, photos and videos are now being shoved in our faces all the time. QR codes and A.I. Chat-bots abound. Fight back. Support human news and writing! I'm real. I'm flesh and blood, and I rely on your support.
I also accept MONERO/XMR cryptocurrency at the following address: 49VL64HjyyQQxYqhvws5RqTrAiB5bF4feJZyDLPcGgUTe7b1FL3Bvrnc9RJbEerZ2pc9mos1KbhmvU4DXErkymk7A9RTPcK
Purchase my books about underground and underwater bases at these links:
Hidden in Plain Sight: Beyond the X-Files
Underground Bases & Tunnels
Underwater and Underground Bases