Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 jhe90 wrote:
People forget even post nuclear exchange, any crops out there gonna be in radiated by the dust from thr various nukes.

Thr dust thrown up might cause a nuclear winter and stop or slow any surviving crop and plant life.

This a will hammer animal population too, so food gonna be reduced for up to years after thr exchange.


Let's be honest. Anything after a nuclear war will be utterly fetched. Any semebelence of life before take maybe decades to restore if ever.

Theoretically.

in practice the dust will settle out with the rain, get into drinking water and food and potentially cause a relative amount of thyroid cancer from the last time it happened.

we dont know if winter is coming. but the immediate thing we do know is the fallout will go somewhere.

 Desubot wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:
People forget even post nuclear exchange, any crops out there gonna be in radiated by the dust from thr various nukes.

Thr dust thrown up might cause a nuclear winter and stop or slow any surviving crop and plant life.

This a will hammer animal population too, so food gonna be reduced for up to years after thr exchange.


Let's be honest. Anything after a nuclear war will be utterly fetched. Any semebelence of life before take maybe decades to restore if ever.

Theoretically.

in practice the dust will settle out with the rain, get into drinking water and food and potentially cause a relative amount of thyroid cancer from the last time it happened.

we dont know if winter is coming. but the immediate thing we do know is the fallout will go somewhere.

True.
A good job we do not the exact answer. We have not done it!

Either way, there's gonna be alot of radioactive dust, contamination and water. The levels of contamination will be very high in some areas and even those outside the blast zones will be down wind or effected by rivers etc caryying.

That will cause alot of harm however it finds it way to peoples lives. There no escaping it.

No, but you can survive it by a combination of luck and heading for less contaminated areas. Though if you are alive after the initial exchange chances are you are already in an area that wont be as badly effected.

Damn, can't help getting sucked back in

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

I'm not going to bother with very long responss as this is going increasingly in circles so I will just make short comments on each section quickly:

- Those stockpiles would have long been taken by the Germans in 1945. They were already starving civilians on a large scale in 1941 in the East and taking everything not nailed down in Western and Eastern Europe. The expectation that food stockpiles would have helped is just unrealistic.

True. In that very specific case they would not have helped.

Problem being that in wartime they are only going to be useful in specific cases anyway. Mainland Europe hasn't seen large scale conflict since WW2 (except Yugoslavia), so how much money would those stockpiles cost to maintain and refresh in those 70 years? Money will always be the determining factor. The risk benefit analysis for food stockpiles when it comes to war just isn't worth it, especially seeing you can pump those funds into the military and try and prevent those stockpiles from becoming necessary in the first place.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
- We have seen decisive knockout punches in the opening phases of almost every recent war involving a major power. Applying overwhelming force as quickly as possible is the key to winning the opening phase. Skirmishing first gives away the advantage of a knockout punch. Also it was never about the winning side quickly ending it. Its about the losing side's highly unlikely chance to recover and regroup with modern equipment. Sure the losing side could drag it out, but realistically its not going anywhere. Both Iraq wars were over the moment they began. Iran-Iraq War has serious issues as a template of a modern war between well trained armies. Plus even taking into account WW1 and 2, there was no relief for the losing side, once those blockades were set up it was steadily downhill for the Central and Axis powers.

The Iran-Iraq war is far more realistic as a template for modern war than any other war, since it is the only war since the Korean war that has been fought between roughly equally matched opponents. Yes, their armies weren't well trained, but that was true for both sides. If both sides are well trained, that basically doesn't give an advantage to either side. The Iraq war barely was a war at all, and not at all a template for how a conflict between two major superpowers would unfold.

Yes it was between roughly equally terrible opponents. That's the issue with using it as a comparison, major powers have shown much better capabilities in modern war. Both sides weren't well trained, but the Iraqis had the advantage in training while the Iranians had it in equipment. Iran barely managed to ward off Iraq in the beginning due to their equipment advantage but didn't have the training to capitalize on their later advantage. If Iran had better training or Iraq more equipment it would have been over much faster.

So Iraq-Iran isn't a great template for major power wars, but the Gulf Wars are, because you can see a major power in an offensive capacity. Just because Iraq was weak doesn't detract from how the US planned and executed the war. Its unlikely that the US would change much in strategy, as a speedy initial strike is key to gaining the upper hand. We can expect both major powers to commit most of their strength in the opening phase to try gain the advantage as early as possible. Holding back your forces just opens your own army up to being destroyed piecemeal by a concentrated enemy offensive with larger forces.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
- Bringing up stubborn and WW2 is unrealistic in todays world. Equipment production isn't possible on such a massive scale anymore.
Using WW2 as a template for what a modern war looks like isn't relevant. War has changed significantly since and inventing parameters to achieve the preferred outcome doesn't change the fact that mass production is no longer possible. Once you get in that hole all the winner has to do is keep on shovelling. Plus if everyone starves to death which is you argument for stockpiles, why not wait that few extra months? People who starved to death usually aren't so stubborn. If a country is losing and starving stockpiles only delay the inevitable.

I welcome you to come visit Uralvagonzavod. They have the infrastructure in place to churn out T-72 tanks by the bucketload. Modern military equipment is almost entirely mass production. It is easy to scale up such mass production, especially of simple weapon systems such as T-72 tanks, BMP-series vehicles, infantry weapons and Kamaz trucks. These things were literally designed to be produced on a massive scale for a massive war. Sure, complicated tech such as fifth-generation fighter jets or Armata tanks will be difficult to produce on similar massive scales, but large wars are not won with such weapons. They are too few to seriously affect the outcome of a large war. War actually has not changed from WW2. Almost everything that is around today was around in WW2 as well, with the notable exceptions of helicopters and advanced missile technology. Everything else in the arsenal of a modern military is basically just modernised versions of WW2 equipment. And as equipment has advanced, so have manufacturing techniques. There is no reason why we could not mass-produce modern military equipment on a far larger scale. All it would require is more resources and more money, both of which would not be an issue in wartime as both get funneled towards increased military production instead of civilian purposes.
Your argument regarding starvation does not make sense. It simply is not true. Just look at historical examples of starvation in wartime.

Yes, the T-72 production might prove useful in specific cases. But newer tank models don't have the same production runs. Plus tanks alone aren't going to win you the war. If you lose the air war then those tanks become very expensive targets. Plus its great that you can churn out cheaper tanks by the hundreds, but then training comes in and such. How long does getting a new crew trained up to battle readiness cost etc. That's all time you might not have, if your air force loses the war in the first few months those factories turn into scrap metal. The force you start the war with is going to be decisive, and using it to knock out as many of the enemy's forces as possible would be critical. A solid opening offensive would only lead to reinforcements being funneled in piecemeal if the main army is broken. This isn't WW2 where you can safely manufacture far away from the front, aircraft can reach every part of the globe now.

Problem is that mass production of military equipment is very costly and takes a long time to get going again, it would bankrupt or devastate most builders or the government after the war. Further you have to take into account that not all countries poses the resources required internally. That first year is going to play a critical role. But if you want to argue that modern equipment isn't going to be decisive to win the war I don't know what to say. A top of the line air superiority fighter outperforming the opponent's aircraft can have large consequences on the wider conflict for example. There is a reason countries invest heavily in modernization and equipment like this, if countries wouldn't think it would seriously affect the outcome why would they invest in it?

Historical examples do not carry as much value because history and especially warfare aren't cyclical. Conditions have changed immensely in 70 years let alone centuries. Were talking about a scenario where food stockpiles become useful to ward off starvation in wartime. This means the enemy has cut off all external food sources due to being able to do so with a stronger military from the initial clash. Either the enemy is preparing to invade or has the strength necessary to keep up the blockade while you have no power to break it, hence requiring those stockpiles. We're not talking about a slow back and forth between armies, were talking about a scenario in which one side can totally dominate the availability of food, that's not a normal historical scenario. The closest comparison would be Japan in 45, being completely strangled resource wise by the US submarine blockade, in 45 Japan was in no condition to ever be able to break that blockade. That is the scenario were looking at, vastly unbalanced levels of power between two combatants that there is no coming back from.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
- Again, keep you fighting longer for what? Modern military equipment isn't designed for mass production. Its all designed to win the first phase. Stockpiles do nothing but delay the inevitable.

Soviet designers would like to have a word with you. Almost everything the Russian army currently uses was designed for mass production.
As to why keep fighting? Because you can win. It is not like the defenders of Leningrad were like 'Oh, we are starving. Let's surrender, why would we keep fighting?'. No, they chose to starve to death. And they kept fighting. And they won.

Both the Soviets and the US employed a level of mass production up to an extent when it was still affordable. This shifted in the 70's and 80's as can be seen by production numbers of newer equipment on both sides. For example, while the T-72 has been built in the tens of thousands the later models only reach several thousands. Planes, tanks and other big equipment actually have pretty similar production runs in the West and in the SU from the late 1970's onward.

Because you can't really. The Soviets had a manpower advantage, an industrial advantage and the advantage of geography. At least two out of these three factors can be negated by modern military equipment. The Germans had zero capabilities to bomb Soviet production, a lot of their equipment was still stationed in the West when it came to the air force and most of all they had done zero preparations beyond expecting to win soon. Meanwhile we're discussing a scenario in which the enemy due to a significant advantage has total control of what goes in and out of the country which leads to starvation. Leningrad had Soviets outside the city, but in the scenario discussed the whole country is the city. There is no outside help coming unless its a very unlikely 11th hour allied intervention.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
- Well seeing as we haven't had a nuclear war calculating the chances are a bit hard. But again, there are so many world ending events you should focus on then. And I'm not talking about spending all our money in the here and now, I'm advocating spending that money on future problems that don't assume 99% of the people are dead. There are more pressing future issues for the next generations that that money is much better spent on. You can keep talking about short-sighted, but I call investing huge amounts of public money on 1 future out of a possible 1000000 short sighted.

Nobody is assuming 99% of the people will be dead but you. Going on the only available evidence we have, which is the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a lot more people than 1% will survive, even without purpose-built shelters. And this is 1 future out of 10000000000 ones that actually is plausible. And potentially very destructive. Therefore we must be prepared for it.

Given how small the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were we have no real idea. But yes, saying 99% is an overstatement, so should we assume 70-80%, as around 50% died in Japan? And yes the other 999999 futures are also possible, with many overlapping, meanwhile nuclear war has zero overlap. Investment into other projects can do good in multiple futures.

But again, what should we prepare for, because there are a lot of events that could destroy human civilization. Super-volcanoes, asteroids etc. By your logic you should prepare for them all. I still believe that is an enormousness waste of resources better spent elsewhere. Besides, food stockpiles could possibly only give a false sense of security, if food production can't match the amount of survivors starvation will occur regardless.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
- That really depends, the Dutch government is less well prepared than many people might think. Having abandoned most Cold War plans. As for those farmers, you have no idea about their actual capabilities without all that infrastructure. Just assuming they can continue on a smaller scale is a huge if. It isn't arcane or secret no, but its going to be a lot harder to learn when half the country is on fire and gone. Of course its not going to be the end of the world, but its going to be a lot harder than just dusting off and starting back up on a smaller scale. We have no clue how many farmers can actually make that shift or have sufficient seed stockpiles to just be able to do it alone.

- Loads? The oldest known skeleton in Europe is about 40k years old and at the edge of Europe. Current archeological theory that is up and coming says that it might have taken several thousands or even ten thousand for H Sapiens to establish themselves in Europe proper. Interesting discussion but drifting a bit far perhaps. Regardless, its true they have a group to survive in, but most people have exactly the same skills as that call center employee. How many experienced survivalists are there going to be on the average population? 1 out of a 1000 or 10000? They can't take care of all those people even if brought down to 1 in a 100 or even 50. Most people are going to be utterly useless beyond menial labor. The government to be able to do that right after a nuclear war would also need large or even huge amounts of stockliles of vehicles and equipment, staff and everything required at the ready. But unless all those people live in or really close to those bunkers they won't make it in time. So restoring government control alone is going to require a massive investment. Likely the government won't be in any position to provide immediate help to the survivors.

- Of course it could be done, but the comparison to Belarus is less relevant because the effects of a full out nuclear war would be far worse. Belarus still had functioning systems, a world to function in and the ability to ask for expert help. None of that is certain after a nuclear war, maybe you will get outside help and maybe you won't. But rebuilding will be far more time consuming and likely isn't going to bring you back to anywhere near the old level. It would be Belarus on steroids, with far more unforseeable problems.

True. It would take a very long time before the world would be built back up to the level of today, if ever. But the world would survive. And I think it is worth spending a bit of money now on helping that survival, just in the not all that unlikely case the worst does happen. Especially since stockpiles would also come in handy during other calamities such as natural disasters.
Ultimately, it comes down to a cost-benefit analysis. Evidently, you do not think it is worth it, while I do. We probably should agree to disagree. This argument is getting long.

The world would survive yes, but the money involved isn't just a bit. To stockpile food and maintain it would run into the billions or trillions. Also natural disasters? If you just spend more money on improving response efforts by national governments that is a lot more cost effective than setting up food stockpiles all over the country in case of a natural disaster.

My twin is stationed there. He called our mom saying that they loved her, all while you hear him saying to his 5 year old "Just keep playing with your toys buddy" it was crazy emotional. The phone cut out shortly after since most of the cell phone systems went down from over usage. My parents were shaking at that point.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
- We have seen decisive knockout punches in the opening phases of almost every recent war involving a major power. Applying overwhelming force as quickly as possible is the key to winning the opening phase. Skirmishing first gives away the advantage of a knockout punch. Also it was never about the winning side quickly ending it. Its about the losing side's highly unlikely chance to recover and regroup with modern equipment. Sure the losing side could drag it out, but realistically its not going anywhere. Both Iraq wars were over the moment they began. Iran-Iraq War has serious issues as a template of a modern war between well trained armies. Plus even taking into account WW1 and 2, there was no relief for the losing side, once those blockades were set up it was steadily downhill for the Central and Axis powers.

The Iran-Iraq war is far more realistic as a template for modern war than any other war, since it is the only war since the Korean war that has been fought between roughly equally matched opponents. Yes, their armies weren't well trained, but that was true for both sides. If both sides are well trained, that basically doesn't give an advantage to either side. The Iraq war barely was a war at all, and not at all a template for how a conflict between two major superpowers would unfold.

Yes it was between roughly equally terrible opponents. That's the issue with using it as a comparison, major powers have shown much better capabilities in modern war. Both sides weren't well trained, but the Iraqis had the advantage in training while the Iranians had it in equipment. Iran barely managed to ward off Iraq in the beginning due to their equipment advantage but didn't have the training to capitalize on their later advantage. If Iran had better training or Iraq more equipment it would have been over much faster.

So Iraq-Iran isn't a great template for major power wars, but the Gulf Wars are, because you can see a major power in an offensive capacity. Just because Iraq was weak doesn't detract from how the US planned and executed the war. Its unlikely that the US would change much in strategy, as a speedy initial strike is key to gaining the upper hand. We can expect both major powers to commit most of their strength in the opening phase to try gain the advantage as early as possible. Holding back your forces just opens your own army up to being destroyed piecemeal by a concentrated enemy offensive with larger forces.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
- Bringing up stubborn and WW2 is unrealistic in todays world. Equipment production isn't possible on such a massive scale anymore.
Using WW2 as a template for what a modern war looks like isn't relevant. War has changed significantly since and inventing parameters to achieve the preferred outcome doesn't change the fact that mass production is no longer possible. Once you get in that hole all the winner has to do is keep on shovelling. Plus if everyone starves to death which is you argument for stockpiles, why not wait that few extra months? People who starved to death usually aren't so stubborn. If a country is losing and starving stockpiles only delay the inevitable.

I welcome you to come visit Uralvagonzavod. They have the infrastructure in place to churn out T-72 tanks by the bucketload. Modern military equipment is almost entirely mass production. It is easy to scale up such mass production, especially of simple weapon systems such as T-72 tanks, BMP-series vehicles, infantry weapons and Kamaz trucks. These things were literally designed to be produced on a massive scale for a massive war. Sure, complicated tech such as fifth-generation fighter jets or Armata tanks will be difficult to produce on similar massive scales, but large wars are not won with such weapons. They are too few to seriously affect the outcome of a large war. War actually has not changed from WW2. Almost everything that is around today was around in WW2 as well, with the notable exceptions of helicopters and advanced missile technology. Everything else in the arsenal of a modern military is basically just modernised versions of WW2 equipment. And as equipment has advanced, so have manufacturing techniques. There is no reason why we could not mass-produce modern military equipment on a far larger scale. All it would require is more resources and more money, both of which would not be an issue in wartime as both get funneled towards increased military production instead of civilian purposes.
Your argument regarding starvation does not make sense. It simply is not true. Just look at historical examples of starvation in wartime.

Yes, the T-72 production might prove useful in specific cases. But newer tank models don't have the same production runs. Plus tanks alone aren't going to win you the war. If you lose the air war then those tanks become very expensive targets. Plus its great that you can churn out cheaper tanks by the hundreds, but then training comes in and such. How long does getting a new crew trained up to battle readiness cost etc. That's all time you might not have, if your air force loses the war in the first few months those factories turn into scrap metal. The force you start the war with is going to be decisive, and using it to knock out as many of the enemy's forces as possible would be critical. A solid opening offensive would only lead to reinforcements being funneled in piecemeal if the main army is broken. This isn't WW2 where you can safely manufacture far away from the front, aircraft can reach every part of the globe now.

Problem is that mass production of military equipment is very costly and takes a long time to get going again, it would bankrupt or devastate most builders or the government after the war. Further you have to take into account that not all countries poses the resources required internally. That first year is going to play a critical role. But if you want to argue that modern equipment isn't going to be decisive to win the war I don't know what to say. A top of the line air superiority fighter outperforming the opponent's aircraft can have large consequences on the wider conflict for example. There is a reason countries invest heavily in modernization and equipment like this, if countries wouldn't think it would seriously affect the outcome why would they invest in it?

Historical examples do not carry as much value because history and especially warfare aren't cyclical. Conditions have changed immensely in 70 years let alone centuries. Were talking about a scenario where food stockpiles become useful to ward off starvation in wartime. This means the enemy has cut off all external food sources due to being able to do so with a stronger military from the initial clash. Either the enemy is preparing to invade or has the strength necessary to keep up the blockade while you have no power to break it, hence requiring those stockpiles. We're not talking about a slow back and forth between armies, were talking about a scenario in which one side can totally dominate the availability of food, that's not a normal historical scenario. The closest comparison would be Japan in 45, being completely strangled resource wise by the US submarine blockade, in 45 Japan was in no condition to ever be able to break that blockade. That is the scenario were looking at, vastly unbalanced levels of power between two combatants that there is no coming back from.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
- Again, keep you fighting longer for what? Modern military equipment isn't designed for mass production. Its all designed to win the first phase. Stockpiles do nothing but delay the inevitable.

Soviet designers would like to have a word with you. Almost everything the Russian army currently uses was designed for mass production.
As to why keep fighting? Because you can win. It is not like the defenders of Leningrad were like 'Oh, we are starving. Let's surrender, why would we keep fighting?'. No, they chose to starve to death. And they kept fighting. And they won.

Both the Soviets and the US employed a level of mass production up to an extent when it was still affordable. This shifted in the 70's and 80's as can be seen by production numbers of newer equipment on both sides. For example, while the T-72 has been built in the tens of thousands the later models only reach several thousands. Planes, tanks and other big equipment actually have pretty similar production runs in the West and in the SU from the late 1970's onward.

Because you can't really. The Soviets had a manpower advantage, an industrial advantage and the advantage of geography. At least two out of these three factors can be negated by modern military equipment. The Germans had zero capabilities to bomb Soviet production, a lot of their equipment was still stationed in the West when it came to the air force and most of all they had done zero preparations beyond expecting to win soon. Meanwhile we're discussing a scenario in which the enemy due to a significant advantage has total control of what goes in and out of the country which leads to starvation. Leningrad had Soviets outside the city, but in the scenario discussed the whole country is the city. There is no outside help coming unless its a very unlikely 11th hour allied intervention.

-Yes, the Iran-Iraq war was between roughly equally terrible opponents. But the war would have dragged on just the same had it been between roughly equally well-trained opponents. You are wrongly assuming that an increase in training only leads to an increase in offensive capability. A better trained opponent will not just be better in attacking, but also in stalling and stopping enemy advances and counterattacks.
This is what makes the Gulf war barely worth the term 'war'. It wasn't a war, it was a turkey shoot. Had the Iraqi army been equally matched with the US armed forces, the Gulf War would have lasted a whole lot longer, and the outcome would probably have been quite different. Again, because an increase in the quality of training and equipment also leads to an increase in defensive capabilities. I said this before, but taking the Gulf War as an example of modern warfare is like taking the battle of Blood River as an example of 19th century warfare. These kind of conflicts happen only when one side has a decisive technological advantage over the other. They are not typical of warfare between opponents on the same technological level.
-You are also giving way too much credence to air power. This isn't WW2 anymore where anti-air warfare is still in its infancy and almost entirely ineffective. Any aircraft that gets within range of a modern anti-air system is nothing but a very expensive target. Wars are not won by aircraft, you can win them only with boots (and wheels and threads, and preferably artillery as well) on the ground. Aircraft are a supporting element. Having air superiority is a lot less effective against a modern military than it was against armies such as that of WW2 or that of Iraq. Anti-air warfare has made huge advances since WW2. A modern-day tank company is almost as effective in destroying air targets as it is in destroying ground targets.
-Mass production of military equipment is very costly indeed. But that is no different now than it is in WW2. Before WW2, military equipment also had very low production runs (much lower for example than during the Cold War period). It was only when the war got going that military production was kicked into high gear. Mass production of military equipment will bankrupt the losing side of the war. But the winning side? Not so much. As the ancient saying goes: To the victor go the spoils.
-History isn't cyclical? Are you getting into philosophy here? Suffice to say there is a lot of people who believe history is cyclical. In fact, a belief in a linear history appears to be a typical modern Western idea that is not found in most other cultures (Shia Islam is a notable exception). Conditions change, yes. But do they truly change, or is it just the repetition of the same patterns over and over again with different actors? Take warfare for example. We mentioned the Gulf War, where one side has a big technological advantage over the other side and the battle is little more than a massacre. Is that truly different from the colonial conflicts of the past, or the wars of the Roman Empire against "barbarian" tribes? Is it truly different from any time in history when two technologically disparate societies came into conflict? Is it a linear progression, or just a repetition of the same pattern in different times with different actors?

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
- Well seeing as we haven't had a nuclear war calculating the chances are a bit hard. But again, there are so many world ending events you should focus on then. And I'm not talking about spending all our money in the here and now, I'm advocating spending that money on future problems that don't assume 99% of the people are dead. There are more pressing future issues for the next generations that that money is much better spent on. You can keep talking about short-sighted, but I call investing huge amounts of public money on 1 future out of a possible 1000000 short sighted.

Nobody is assuming 99% of the people will be dead but you. Going on the only available evidence we have, which is the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a lot more people than 1% will survive, even without purpose-built shelters. And this is 1 future out of 10000000000 ones that actually is plausible. And potentially very destructive. Therefore we must be prepared for it.

Given how small the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were we have no real idea. But yes, saying 99% is an overstatement, so should we assume 70-80%, as around 50% died in Japan? And yes the other 999999 futures are also possible, with many overlapping, meanwhile nuclear war has zero overlap. Investment into other projects can do good in multiple futures.

But again, what should we prepare for, because there are a lot of events that could destroy human civilization. Super-volcanoes, asteroids etc. By your logic you should prepare for them all. I still believe that is an enormousness waste of resources better spent elsewhere. Besides, food stockpiles could possibly only give a false sense of security, if food production can't match the amount of survivors starvation will occur regardless.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
- That really depends, the Dutch government is less well prepared than many people might think. Having abandoned most Cold War plans. As for those farmers, you have no idea about their actual capabilities without all that infrastructure. Just assuming they can continue on a smaller scale is a huge if. It isn't arcane or secret no, but its going to be a lot harder to learn when half the country is on fire and gone. Of course its not going to be the end of the world, but its going to be a lot harder than just dusting off and starting back up on a smaller scale. We have no clue how many farmers can actually make that shift or have sufficient seed stockpiles to just be able to do it alone.

- Loads? The oldest known skeleton in Europe is about 40k years old and at the edge of Europe. Current archeological theory that is up and coming says that it might have taken several thousands or even ten thousand for H Sapiens to establish themselves in Europe proper. Interesting discussion but drifting a bit far perhaps. Regardless, its true they have a group to survive in, but most people have exactly the same skills as that call center employee. How many experienced survivalists are there going to be on the average population? 1 out of a 1000 or 10000? They can't take care of all those people even if brought down to 1 in a 100 or even 50. Most people are going to be utterly useless beyond menial labor. The government to be able to do that right after a nuclear war would also need large or even huge amounts of stockliles of vehicles and equipment, staff and everything required at the ready. But unless all those people live in or really close to those bunkers they won't make it in time. So restoring government control alone is going to require a massive investment. Likely the government won't be in any position to provide immediate help to the survivors.

- Of course it could be done, but the comparison to Belarus is less relevant because the effects of a full out nuclear war would be far worse. Belarus still had functioning systems, a world to function in and the ability to ask for expert help. None of that is certain after a nuclear war, maybe you will get outside help and maybe you won't. But rebuilding will be far more time consuming and likely isn't going to bring you back to anywhere near the old level. It would be Belarus on steroids, with far more unforseeable problems.

True. It would take a very long time before the world would be built back up to the level of today, if ever. But the world would survive. And I think it is worth spending a bit of money now on helping that survival, just in the not all that unlikely case the worst does happen. Especially since stockpiles would also come in handy during other calamities such as natural disasters.
Ultimately, it comes down to a cost-benefit analysis. Evidently, you do not think it is worth it, while I do. We probably should agree to disagree. This argument is getting long.

The world would survive yes, but the money involved isn't just a bit. To stockpile food and maintain it would run into the billions or trillions. Also natural disasters? If you just spend more money on improving response efforts by national governments that is a lot more cost effective than setting up food stockpiles all over the country in case of a natural disaster.

I never said we should prepare for all potential disasters. Just the ones which seem likely to happen, of which nuclear war sadly is one. And stockpiles will improve government response efforts, both in the case of nuclear war and in natural disasters.
-"Likely the government won't be in any position to provide immediate help to the survivors." Not if they aren't prepared, no.
-"Current archeological theory that is up and coming says that it might have taken several thousands or even ten thousand for H Sapiens to establish themselves in Europe proper." That is hardly up and coming theory. Yes, it took a long while before H. Sapiens was established in Europe (H. Sapiens is thought to have evolved between 400,000 and 200,000 years ago, and first enters Europe only about 50,000 years ago). But we know that they were firmly established across Europe by the time H. Neanderthalensis died out, which is about 40,000 years ago (remains from H. Sapiens dating to roughly this time have been discovered all over Europe from Italy to Britain to the Arctic), although they later disappeared again in much of the continent during the last glacial maximum. After the end of the last glacial maximum, re-population of Europe was very swift.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
- We have seen decisive knockout punches in the opening phases of almost every recent war involving a major power. Applying overwhelming force as quickly as possible is the key to winning the opening phase. Skirmishing first gives away the advantage of a knockout punch. Also it was never about the winning side quickly ending it. Its about the losing side's highly unlikely chance to recover and regroup with modern equipment. Sure the losing side could drag it out, but realistically its not going anywhere. Both Iraq wars were over the moment they began. Iran-Iraq War has serious issues as a template of a modern war between well trained armies. Plus even taking into account WW1 and 2, there was no relief for the losing side, once those blockades were set up it was steadily downhill for the Central and Axis powers.

The Iran-Iraq war is far more realistic as a template for modern war than any other war, since it is the only war since the Korean war that has been fought between roughly equally matched opponents. Yes, their armies weren't well trained, but that was true for both sides. If both sides are well trained, that basically doesn't give an advantage to either side. The Iraq war barely was a war at all, and not at all a template for how a conflict between two major superpowers would unfold.

Yes it was between roughly equally terrible opponents. That's the issue with using it as a comparison, major powers have shown much better capabilities in modern war. Both sides weren't well trained, but the Iraqis had the advantage in training while the Iranians had it in equipment. Iran barely managed to ward off Iraq in the beginning due to their equipment advantage but didn't have the training to capitalize on their later advantage. If Iran had better training or Iraq more equipment it would have been over much faster.

So Iraq-Iran isn't a great template for major power wars, but the Gulf Wars are, because you can see a major power in an offensive capacity. Just because Iraq was weak doesn't detract from how the US planned and executed the war. Its unlikely that the US would change much in strategy, as a speedy initial strike is key to gaining the upper hand. We can expect both major powers to commit most of their strength in the opening phase to try gain the advantage as early as possible. Holding back your forces just opens your own army up to being destroyed piecemeal by a concentrated enemy offensive with larger forces.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
- Bringing up stubborn and WW2 is unrealistic in todays world. Equipment production isn't possible on such a massive scale anymore.
Using WW2 as a template for what a modern war looks like isn't relevant. War has changed significantly since and inventing parameters to achieve the preferred outcome doesn't change the fact that mass production is no longer possible. Once you get in that hole all the winner has to do is keep on shovelling. Plus if everyone starves to death which is you argument for stockpiles, why not wait that few extra months? People who starved to death usually aren't so stubborn. If a country is losing and starving stockpiles only delay the inevitable.

I welcome you to come visit Uralvagonzavod. They have the infrastructure in place to churn out T-72 tanks by the bucketload. Modern military equipment is almost entirely mass production. It is easy to scale up such mass production, especially of simple weapon systems such as T-72 tanks, BMP-series vehicles, infantry weapons and Kamaz trucks. These things were literally designed to be produced on a massive scale for a massive war. Sure, complicated tech such as fifth-generation fighter jets or Armata tanks will be difficult to produce on similar massive scales, but large wars are not won with such weapons. They are too few to seriously affect the outcome of a large war. War actually has not changed from WW2. Almost everything that is around today was around in WW2 as well, with the notable exceptions of helicopters and advanced missile technology. Everything else in the arsenal of a modern military is basically just modernised versions of WW2 equipment. And as equipment has advanced, so have manufacturing techniques. There is no reason why we could not mass-produce modern military equipment on a far larger scale. All it would require is more resources and more money, both of which would not be an issue in wartime as both get funneled towards increased military production instead of civilian purposes.
Your argument regarding starvation does not make sense. It simply is not true. Just look at historical examples of starvation in wartime.

Yes, the T-72 production might prove useful in specific cases. But newer tank models don't have the same production runs. Plus tanks alone aren't going to win you the war. If you lose the air war then those tanks become very expensive targets. Plus its great that you can churn out cheaper tanks by the hundreds, but then training comes in and such. How long does getting a new crew trained up to battle readiness cost etc. That's all time you might not have, if your air force loses the war in the first few months those factories turn into scrap metal. The force you start the war with is going to be decisive, and using it to knock out as many of the enemy's forces as possible would be critical. A solid opening offensive would only lead to reinforcements being funneled in piecemeal if the main army is broken. This isn't WW2 where you can safely manufacture far away from the front, aircraft can reach every part of the globe now.

Problem is that mass production of military equipment is very costly and takes a long time to get going again, it would bankrupt or devastate most builders or the government after the war. Further you have to take into account that not all countries poses the resources required internally. That first year is going to play a critical role. But if you want to argue that modern equipment isn't going to be decisive to win the war I don't know what to say. A top of the line air superiority fighter outperforming the opponent's aircraft can have large consequences on the wider conflict for example. There is a reason countries invest heavily in modernization and equipment like this, if countries wouldn't think it would seriously affect the outcome why would they invest in it?

Historical examples do not carry as much value because history and especially warfare aren't cyclical. Conditions have changed immensely in 70 years let alone centuries. Were talking about a scenario where food stockpiles become useful to ward off starvation in wartime. This means the enemy has cut off all external food sources due to being able to do so with a stronger military from the initial clash. Either the enemy is preparing to invade or has the strength necessary to keep up the blockade while you have no power to break it, hence requiring those stockpiles. We're not talking about a slow back and forth between armies, were talking about a scenario in which one side can totally dominate the availability of food, that's not a normal historical scenario. The closest comparison would be Japan in 45, being completely strangled resource wise by the US submarine blockade, in 45 Japan was in no condition to ever be able to break that blockade. That is the scenario were looking at, vastly unbalanced levels of power between two combatants that there is no coming back from.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
- Again, keep you fighting longer for what? Modern military equipment isn't designed for mass production. Its all designed to win the first phase. Stockpiles do nothing but delay the inevitable.

Soviet designers would like to have a word with you. Almost everything the Russian army currently uses was designed for mass production.
As to why keep fighting? Because you can win. It is not like the defenders of Leningrad were like 'Oh, we are starving. Let's surrender, why would we keep fighting?'. No, they chose to starve to death. And they kept fighting. And they won.

Both the Soviets and the US employed a level of mass production up to an extent when it was still affordable. This shifted in the 70's and 80's as can be seen by production numbers of newer equipment on both sides. For example, while the T-72 has been built in the tens of thousands the later models only reach several thousands. Planes, tanks and other big equipment actually have pretty similar production runs in the West and in the SU from the late 1970's onward.

Because you can't really. The Soviets had a manpower advantage, an industrial advantage and the advantage of geography. At least two out of these three factors can be negated by modern military equipment. The Germans had zero capabilities to bomb Soviet production, a lot of their equipment was still stationed in the West when it came to the air force and most of all they had done zero preparations beyond expecting to win soon. Meanwhile we're discussing a scenario in which the enemy due to a significant advantage has total control of what goes in and out of the country which leads to starvation. Leningrad had Soviets outside the city, but in the scenario discussed the whole country is the city. There is no outside help coming unless its a very unlikely 11th hour allied intervention.

-Yes, the Iran-Iraq war was between roughly equally terrible opponents. But the war would have dragged on just the same had it been between roughly equally well-trained opponents. You are wrongly assuming that an increase in training only leads to an increase in offensive capability. A better trained opponent will not just be better in attacking, but also in stalling and stopping enemy advances and counterattacks.
This is what makes the Gulf war barely worth the term 'war'. It wasn't a war, it was a turkey shoot. Had the Iraqi army been equally matched with the US armed forces, the Gulf War would have lasted a whole lot longer, and the outcome would probably have been quite different. Again, because an increase in the quality of training and equipment also leads to an increase in defensive capabilities. I said this before, but taking the Gulf War as an example of modern warfare is like taking the battle of Blood River as an example of 19th century warfare. These kind of conflicts happen only when one side has a decisive technological advantage over the other. They are not typical of warfare between opponents on the same technological level.
-You are also giving way too much credence to air power. This isn't WW2 anymore where anti-air warfare is still in its infancy and almost entirely ineffective. Any aircraft that gets within range of a modern anti-air system is nothing but a very expensive target. Wars are not won by aircraft, you can win them only with boots (and wheels and threads, and preferably artillery as well) on the ground. Aircraft are a supporting element. Having air superiority is a lot less effective against a modern military than it was against armies such as that of WW2 or that of Iraq. Anti-air warfare has made huge advances since WW2. A modern-day tank company is almost as effective in destroying air targets as it is in destroying ground targets.
-Mass production of military equipment is very costly indeed. But that is no different now than it is in WW2. Before WW2, military equipment also had very low production runs (much lower for example than during the Cold War period). It was only when the war got going that military production was kicked into high gear. Mass production of military equipment will bankrupt the losing side of the war. But the winning side? Not so much. As the ancient saying goes: To the victor go the spoils.
-History isn't cyclical? Are you getting into philosophy here? Suffice to say there is a lot of people who believe history is cyclical. In fact, a belief in a linear history appears to be a typical modern Western idea that is not found in most other cultures (Shia Islam is a notable exception). Conditions change, yes. But do they truly change, or is it just the repetition of the same patterns over and over again with different actors? Take warfare for example. We mentioned the Gulf War, where one side has a big technological advantage over the other side and the battle is little more than a massacre. Is that truly different from the colonial conflicts of the past, or the wars of the Roman Empire against "barbarian" tribes? Is it truly different from any time in history when two technologically disparate societies came into conflict? Is it a linear progression, or just a repetition of the same pattern in different times with different actors?

Would it though? What I'm saying is that training is going to cut it if equipment is equal and equipment is going to cut it when training is equal. Iraq's and Iran's performance was just terrible. But Iran could have capitalized on their early succes in gaining an equipment advantage if it had possessed better trained troops that didn't rely on human wave tactics. Its not unrealistic to assume that a better trained and commanded army than that of just post revolutionary Iran could have done better. Yeah, maybe if well trained modern armies clash and they lose roughly the same amount of equipment the war could go on for a longer time, but how unlikely is that? A more likely outcome is that when it comes to two roughly equal forces the one with the more modern equipment (mostly air force) will come out on top. It happened for Iran to some extent, with its air force crippling the Iraqi army's ability to advance. But that same air force could be turned on bombing factories an such so that equipment advantage becomes more unbalanced. Neither Iraq or Iran really had the capacity to produce tanks or aircraft, so the influence of production can't be seen.

Also previously you argued that "complicated tech such as fifth-generation fighter jets or Armata tanks will be difficult to produce on similar massive scales, but large wars are not won with such weapons". But now you say that "These kind of conflicts happen only when one side has a decisive technological advantage over the other."? Didn't Iraq have most of the equipment that has roughly stayed the same since WW2 like you said? So are wars won by a technological edge or not? You make contradictory statements on the effect of technology on the battlefield. The more technologically advanced air force could negate a production advantage if it gains air superiority.

Iraq was a turkey shoot, but you missed where I said it wasn't about Iraq being weak. Its about the planning and initial execution, not the quick defeat afterwards. The key to modern warfare in the Second Gulf War example is the overwhelming concentration of force in the first few hours to gain the upper hand. That is likely going to be what both major powers aim for in a war, so the results of who would apply that overwhelming concentration best would be clear in the first few weeks.

Just as anti-air has made advances so have counter measures. Its a constant race between offensive and defensive technology. To just state that anti-air has won the race is ludicrous. If anti-air has, why even bother with building large amounts of aircraft like the major powers do? Are all the militaries in the world run by idiots who haven't realized anti-air reigns supreme? Aircraft are an offensive element, not just a supportive element.

Before WW2 equipment had small production runs? Sometimes, but for good reason. Tanks and aircraft were very new relatively speaking, a lot of designing was going on and this was also in the period of one of the worst economic crisis. Yet some countries, primarily the Soviets and such still had production runs into the thousands. Those production runs were still larger than that of (post) Cold War equipment in a good number of cases when looked at numbers produced versus years of production. Yeah it really depends on what piece you're looking at and the speed at which they become obsolete was incredibly fast in the 1930's. As for the to the victors go the spoils, that might be different depending on the victor in the current international climate. The recent wars the West 'won' only ended up costing incredible amounts for negligible gains because the saying doesn't hold true for the West trying to uphold their normative standards. Plus look at Great Britain and France after WW1, the war absolutely crippled them economically even though they won, it was the beginning of the end for them as major powers and WW2 just cemented it. The reason the US did so well and to an extent the Soviet Union is because of the global political and economic shift towards the two new superpowers. So a victor that already has a sort of hegemony has a lot to lose even if they win. Now of course that depends entirely on who the two powers fighting would be in that context as neither or both might have that existing investment.

If history is cyclical that means you could intervene or even predict what would happen. But no, this isn't philosophy per say although the teaching of history as a profession touches a bit upon the philosophy of science (even though history is a humanities subject ). But yes, those conflicts really are different, different cultures, motivations etc etc. Just because those examples had big technological advantages doesn't mean you can project the pattern of technological advantage=win. Look at the Vietnam War or both the US and Soviet wars in Afghanistan. So many more factors can influence an outcome depending on morals, restraint and a host of others factors. But times and military technology change. Currently for interstate warfare it pays off to be prepared as best as possible for when a war breaks out versus relying on production because that production might be knocked out. But going to your Roman example, the Parthians were clearly less technologically advanced than the Romans in some obvious parts, yet the Parthians were able to resist the Romans. Its also a bit misleading to state that colonial conflicts provide clear evidence, as many if not most of those colonial conflicts were fought with native/indigenous allies that proved to be the key winning, its how the British won India, the Dutch Indonesia, the Spanish the Americas. To say its just the pattern repeating itself is too simplistic and falls into the human trap of always trying to look for patterns and seeing them even if objectively there are none, its because we want to create something familiar.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
- Well seeing as we haven't had a nuclear war calculating the chances are a bit hard. But again, there are so many world ending events you should focus on then. And I'm not talking about spending all our money in the here and now, I'm advocating spending that money on future problems that don't assume 99% of the people are dead. There are more pressing future issues for the next generations that that money is much better spent on. You can keep talking about short-sighted, but I call investing huge amounts of public money on 1 future out of a possible 1000000 short sighted.

Nobody is assuming 99% of the people will be dead but you. Going on the only available evidence we have, which is the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a lot more people than 1% will survive, even without purpose-built shelters. And this is 1 future out of 10000000000 ones that actually is plausible. And potentially very destructive. Therefore we must be prepared for it.

Given how small the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were we have no real idea. But yes, saying 99% is an overstatement, so should we assume 70-80%, as around 50% died in Japan? And yes the other 999999 futures are also possible, with many overlapping, meanwhile nuclear war has zero overlap. Investment into other projects can do good in multiple futures.

But again, what should we prepare for, because there are a lot of events that could destroy human civilization. Super-volcanoes, asteroids etc. By your logic you should prepare for them all. I still believe that is an enormousness waste of resources better spent elsewhere. Besides, food stockpiles could possibly only give a false sense of security, if food production can't match the amount of survivors starvation will occur regardless.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
- That really depends, the Dutch government is less well prepared than many people might think. Having abandoned most Cold War plans. As for those farmers, you have no idea about their actual capabilities without all that infrastructure. Just assuming they can continue on a smaller scale is a huge if. It isn't arcane or secret no, but its going to be a lot harder to learn when half the country is on fire and gone. Of course its not going to be the end of the world, but its going to be a lot harder than just dusting off and starting back up on a smaller scale. We have no clue how many farmers can actually make that shift or have sufficient seed stockpiles to just be able to do it alone.

- Loads? The oldest known skeleton in Europe is about 40k years old and at the edge of Europe. Current archeological theory that is up and coming says that it might have taken several thousands or even ten thousand for H Sapiens to establish themselves in Europe proper. Interesting discussion but drifting a bit far perhaps. Regardless, its true they have a group to survive in, but most people have exactly the same skills as that call center employee. How many experienced survivalists are there going to be on the average population? 1 out of a 1000 or 10000? They can't take care of all those people even if brought down to 1 in a 100 or even 50. Most people are going to be utterly useless beyond menial labor. The government to be able to do that right after a nuclear war would also need large or even huge amounts of stockliles of vehicles and equipment, staff and everything required at the ready. But unless all those people live in or really close to those bunkers they won't make it in time. So restoring government control alone is going to require a massive investment. Likely the government won't be in any position to provide immediate help to the survivors.

- Of course it could be done, but the comparison to Belarus is less relevant because the effects of a full out nuclear war would be far worse. Belarus still had functioning systems, a world to function in and the ability to ask for expert help. None of that is certain after a nuclear war, maybe you will get outside help and maybe you won't. But rebuilding will be far more time consuming and likely isn't going to bring you back to anywhere near the old level. It would be Belarus on steroids, with far more unforseeable problems.

True. It would take a very long time before the world would be built back up to the level of today, if ever. But the world would survive. And I think it is worth spending a bit of money now on helping that survival, just in the not all that unlikely case the worst does happen. Especially since stockpiles would also come in handy during other calamities such as natural disasters.
Ultimately, it comes down to a cost-benefit analysis. Evidently, you do not think it is worth it, while I do. We probably should agree to disagree. This argument is getting long.

The world would survive yes, but the money involved isn't just a bit. To stockpile food and maintain it would run into the billions or trillions. Also natural disasters? If you just spend more money on improving response efforts by national governments that is a lot more cost effective than setting up food stockpiles all over the country in case of a natural disaster.

I never said we should prepare for all potential disasters. Just the ones which seem likely to happen, of which nuclear war sadly is one. And stockpiles will improve government response efforts, both in the case of nuclear war and in natural disasters.
-"Likely the government won't be in any position to provide immediate help to the survivors." Not if they aren't prepared, no.
-"Current archeological theory that is up and coming says that it might have taken several thousands or even ten thousand for H Sapiens to establish themselves in Europe proper." That is hardly up and coming theory. Yes, it took a long while before H. Sapiens was established in Europe (H. Sapiens is thought to have evolved between 400,000 and 200,000 years ago, and first enters Europe only about 50,000 years ago). But we know that they were firmly established across Europe by the time H. Neanderthalensis died out, which is about 40,000 years ago (remains from H. Sapiens dating to roughly this time have been discovered all over Europe from Italy to Britain to the Arctic), although they later disappeared again in much of the continent during the last glacial maximum. After the end of the last glacial maximum, re-population of Europe was very swift.

Explain "likely to happen" though? How likely, is it more likely than an asteroid or something else? The problem with this is trying to quantify want can't really be quantified. It might be a 1 in a million or a 1 in billion chance, we don't know. But that is exactly the point, we don't know for many incredibly destructive possible event, so how do you decide which takes priority?

Also no, stockpiles don't improve government response efforts if the government is bad at responding in the first place. So if you're arguing for food stockpiles in the case of natural disasters its better to invest that money into training more rescue personnel, more equipment to rescue people such as helicopters etc. While giving them food is important, saving lives directly in the first days should take priority. While you can live without food for a few days, how long are you going to last trapped under a building or washed out to sea etc. So the preparation argument would see food stockpiles being quite low on the list as there are more critical response elements than food so to speak.

Well I was more referring to the theory about Neanderthal replacement with a longer transition period from Kolodny and Feldman from last October as the up and coming one, sorry I wrote that badly and vague which I sometimes tend to do. Its hard to prove that one but its pretty interesting nonetheless. As for the skeletons, as far as I'm aware the oldest is 40.000 years ago and the ones further inside Europe range from 40.000 to 30.000 years. But its been a while since I've done any trips into the archaeological field so I'm going to yield to your expertise on the matter. But if Kolodny's and Feldman's theory is credible that changes some dimensions of Neanderthal disappearance versus arrival of Homo Sapiens in larger numbers.