4 ms·

I'm not so sure about that. It's called "mutually assured destruction" for a reason. If you have an alarm, there is some probability that it's a false one. If

I'm not so sure about that. It's called "mutually assured destruction" for a reason. If you have an alarm, there is some probability that it's a false one. If the US were to respond to a false alarm by say, nuking Russia, they could expect a 100% chance that Russia would retaliate. The retaliation would be extremely severe if either the US or Russia gets nuked. You have to think that in addition to all ground-based silos (some of which would definitely survive a nuclear strike), there are stealth subs with nuclear capabilities going around. Even if the US or Russia "lost" a nuclear war, these subs would be there to exercise some kind of vengeance, and make sure that the other side is destroyed as well. If some alarm goes off and there is some chance that nukes are going to hit the US, the safest course of action is probably to prepare to retaliate, but wait as long as possible to confirm that there is an incoming nuclear strike. This might even mean waiting to confirm that some US targets have been hit before retaliating. You also should be pretty god-damn sure you know who initiated that strike before you retaliate. China, for instance, has a limited number of ICBMs. They couldn't destroy the US even if they wanted to. Russia, on the other hand, could nuke the entire world multiple times.

arethuza 10y ago
As an aside - worth noting that one of the UK's Trident submarines is actually called HMS Vengeance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Vengeance_(S31) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Vengeance_(S31)
Jabbles 10y ago
I meant that ignoring the alarm completely is wrong (see GP), and that some kind of reaction is needed rather than suggesting a complete retaliation.
dllthomas 10y ago
> If the US were to respond to a false alarm by say, nuking Russia, they could expect a 100% chance that Russia would retaliate. Unless the attack successfully disables their response. I don't think it makes sense to rely on that, but it's definitely a point that has factored into various calculations around this issue over the years.

arethuza 10y ago

As an aside - worth noting that one of the UK's Trident submarines is actually called HMS Vengeance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Vengeance_(S31) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Vengeance_(S31)

Jabbles 10y ago

I meant that ignoring the alarm completely is wrong (see GP), and that some kind of reaction is needed rather than suggesting a complete retaliation.

dllthomas 10y ago

> If the US were to respond to a false alarm by say, nuking Russia, they could expect a 100% chance that Russia would retaliate. Unless the attack successfully disables their response. I don't think it makes sense to rely on that, but it's definitely a point that has factored into various calculations around this issue over the years.