New Reality Seeds

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by Ashtagon

The obvious delivery mechanism would be a junk freighter. That gets around the issue of bomb size (at least as far as transportation goes), and you don't even need to get the bomb airborne for coastal targets. You also get to hide the bomb in plain sight as you sail all the way into the harbour. Once in position, crew sets bomb on a timer then disappears inland.

Better, though of course dozens of junk freighters aren't exactly cheap, and coordinating an operation requiring simultaneity with junk ships, possibly without radio links sounds pretty tough. And then there's the issue of somebody allowing them into their ports on your timetable during a war.

A more serious problem with a nuclear strike to kill even dozens of city centers is that it isn't *actually* going to knock any Great Power out of a war. Certainly not the British Empire or the United States. Their populations and productive capabilities are just too spread out (and in the case of the United States, not particularly coastal). Do something like this and what you get isn't victory, it's a somewhat damaged but definitely not crippled enemy who is now enraged to the point a negotiated end to the war is impossible. You may be able to get a period appropriate post-apocalypse out of it - after the more than a decade long war nukes a couple hundred cities on both sides and both of them are running short of young men for the fronts - but I think your chances of scoring a victory you couldn't have at least made a serious go at with conventional forces are negligible.

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

Highly inefficient bombs with lots of fallout would also cause disproportionate damage to locations because the lingering radioactivity would deny people access to the locations.

This one is actually pretty exaggerated in post-apocalypse stories too. Lingering radiation at the level of actual radiation sickness is pretty short lived. Detectable, or even cancer inducing, levels of radiation can be considerably more persistent, but the miles (or more) across radioactive wastelands that kill anyone who enters them decades (or even months) later you see in a lot stories are probably impossible even if you are trying for them.

[Astromancer]

Devastating the U.S. or even just the East coast is out. You might get New York in a sneak attack and create economic chaos. This would lead to Chicago quickly becoming America's first city.

Perhaps the Government flees DC for Chicago as well. For greater security.

[ericthered]

Originally Posted by Astromancer

Devastating the U.S. or even just the East coast is out. You might get New York in a sneak attack and create economic chaos. This would lead to Chicago quickly becoming America's first city.

Perhaps the Government flees DC for Chicago as well. For greater security.

Sure, the economic structures will move there. But my bet is on Federal government moving to a smaller area, one it can dominate as completely as it dominates D.C. They'll still want to be close to the power centers, so I suspect somewhere between Pennsylvanian and Illinois is ideal. Though they may take up residence on the Mississippi somewhere.

[Ashtagon]

Originally Posted by malloyd

Better, though of course dozens of junk freighters aren't exactly cheap, and coordinating an operation requiring simultaneity with junk ships, possibly without radio links sounds pretty tough. And then there's the issue of somebody allowing them into their ports on your timetable during a war.

A more serious problem with a nuclear strike to kill even dozens of city centers is that it isn't *actually* going to knock any Great Power out of a war. Certainly not the British Empire or the United States. Their populations and productive capabilities are just too spread out (and in the case of the United States, not particularly coastal). Do something like this and what you get isn't victory, it's a somewhat damaged but definitely not crippled enemy who is now enraged to the point a negotiated end to the war is impossible. You may be able to get a period appropriate post-apocalypse out of it - after the more than a decade long war nukes a couple hundred cities on both sides and both of them are running short of young men for the fronts - but I think your chances of scoring a victory you couldn't have at least made a serious go at with conventional forces are negligible.

Well, the thing is, you don't have to synchronise your attack beyond the ability of the enemy to intelligently react. Your junk freighters might not have radio, but so what? It's not like the other guy does either. So you sail in, aim to arrive on a particular calendar date, and detonate the next morning.

And even if the target has radio, they still have to is to realise what exactly has happened, how it happened, and formulate a security response that will prevent it happening again. Even today, that doesn't happen fast. Worst case, a crew might be put in a situation of setting a short fuse on their bomb if a search party approaches before they are ready.

Done properly, the attacker has taken out all the major freight harbours, crippling sea trade. Any any security protocol sufficient to deter repeat attacks would reduce trade to a trickle of what it could be with the remaining harbours.

True, you haven't taken down any of the inland infrastructure, so how effective this is does depend on how much the inland infrastructure relies on sea trade. And equally, you haven't taken out any military harbours (unless of course they were co-located with a freight harbour to within a few miles). So there is still room for a military response.

So yeah, it's not most the most strategically sound of decisions. But given that MAD theory clearly hasn't taken hold in the timeline in question, it follows that proper strategic planning that involves nuclear weapons is not this timeline's strong suit.

[Daigoro]

Didn't the Hindu-German Conspiracy in WWI manage to do a lot of weapon smuggling in and out of New York? If they were nukes instead, it wouldn't have been a great deal more difficult.

If it wasn't that conspiracy, there at least was some other historical case, maybe more related to the IRA.

Originally Posted by Ashtagon

And even if the target has radio, they still have to is to realise what exactly has happened, how it happened, and formulate a security response that will prevent it happening again.

Indeed. Japan didn't even know what happened in Hiroshima for some time, and had no idea about what to do against the next one. I think having nuke freighters blow up over a course of even weeks in east coast city harbours would be easily viable.

[Astromancer]

Originally Posted by ericthered

Sure, the economic structures will move there. But my bet is on Federal government moving to a smaller area, one it can dominate as completely as it dominates D.C. They'll still want to be close to the power centers, so I suspect somewhere between Pennsylvanian and Illinois is ideal. Though they may take up residence on the Mississippi somewhere.

Cairo, St. Louis, or more likely somewhere further north but on the Mississippi. I agree about the symbolism of that river. Probably not in the state of Illinois.

[TGLS]

Maybe Pittsburgh. It would have the symbolism of Mount Washington.

[Astromancer]

Originally Posted by TGLS

Maybe Pittsburgh. It would have the symbolism of Mount Washington.

It would also be linked to multiple transport systems. My Fathers Aunts lived there, sweet ladies.

[AlexanderHowl]

What about diesel electric submarines using nuclear torpedoes?