The Effects of Nuclear War
Chapter IV
CASE 4: A LARGE SOVIET ATTACK ON U.S. MILITARY AND ECONOMIC TARGETS
This case discusses a massive attack that one normally associates with all-out nuclear war. The attack uses thousands of warheads to attack urban-industrial targets, strategic targets, and other military targets. The number of deaths and the damage and destruction inflicted on the U.S. society and economy by the sheer magnitude of such an attack would place in question whether the United States would ever recover its position as an organized, industrial, and powerful country.
OTA favored examining purely retaliatory strikes for both sides, but all of the available executive branch studies involved Soviet pre-emption and U.S. retaliation. However, the differences between a Soviet first strike and a retaliation do not appear to be appreciably large in terms of damage to the civilian structure. Like the United States, the Soviets have a secure second-strike force in their SLBMs and are assumed to target them generally against the softer urban-industrial targets. Moreover, a U.S. first strike would be unlikely to destroy the bulk of Soviet ICBMs before they could be launched in retaliation.
The effects of a large Soviet attack against the United States would be devastating. The most immediate effects would be the loss of millions of human lives, accompanied by similar incomprehensible levels of injuries, and the physical destruction of a high percentage of U.S. economic and industrial capacity. The full range of effects resulting from several thousand warheads — most having yields of a megaton or greater— impacting on or near U.S. cities can only be discussed in terms of uncertainty and speculation. The executive branch studies that addressed this level of attack report a wide range of fatality levels reflecting various assumptions about the size of the attack, the protective posture of the population, and the proportion of air bursts to ground burst weapons.
The DOD 1977 study estimated that 155 million to 165 million Americans would be killed by this attack if no civil defense measures were taken and all weapons were ground burst. DCPA looked at a similar attack in 1978 where only half the weapons were ground burst; it reduced the fatality estimate to 122 million. ACDA’s analysis of a similar case estimated that 105 million to 131 million would die.
If people made use of existing shelters near their homes, the 155 million to 165 million fatality estimate would be reduced to 110 million to 14s million, and the 122 million fatalities to 100 million. The comparable ACDA fatality estimate drops to 76 million to 85 million. Again ACDA gets a lower figure through assuming air bursts for about 60 percent of the incoming weapons. Finally, if urban populations were evacuated from risk areas, the estimated prompt fatality levels would be substantially reduced. The DOD study showed fatalities of 40 million to 55 million, with DCPA showing a very large drop to 20 million from the 100 million level. The primary reason for the 2-to-1 differential is the degree of protection from fallout assumed for the evacuated population.
In summary, U.S. fatality estimates range from a high of 155 million to 165 million to a low of 20 million to 55 million. Fatalities of this magnitude beg the question of injuries to the survivors. None of the analyses attempted to estimate injuries with the same precision used in estimated fatalities. However, DCP A did provide injury estimates ranging from 33 million to 12 million, depending on circumstances. An additional point worth noting is that all of the fatality figures just discussed are for the first 30 days following the attack; they do not account for subsequent deaths among the injured or from economic disruption and deprivation.