5 ms·
If you detect a massive ICBM launch from Russia, you know what to do - nuke Russia. You have half an hour to launch before Russian missiles take out all silos.
by pps43 9y ago
If you detect a massive ICBM launch from Russia, you know what to do - nuke Russia. You have half an hour to launch before Russian missiles take out all silos.
Now what do you do if you detect SLBM launch from somewhere in the Pacific Ocean? Who do you nuke?
- avar 9y agoThe US is peculiar with its nuclear policy in trying to guarantee immediate response, by contrast say the UK only has nuclear submarines at sea, and it's expected that there'll be nothing like an immediate response, rather the captains of those submarines will find out who nuked the UK and respond. So the answer for deterrence purposes is you don't need to nuke anyone right away, immediate response is only one layer of the onion when it comes to nuclear deterrence.
- pps43 9y agoIf you rely only on submarines for deterrence then you don't need satellites detecting launches in the first place. I don't think UK or France have (or need) that capability.
- avar 9y agoThat's not how it works. The US also relies on the ability to promptly respond to a first strike, which say the UK does not. What I'm pointing out is that you've conflated two things. Just because one aspect of your deterrence is the ability to launch your land-based ICBMs within 30 minutes, that doesn't mean that the inability to do so (e.g. because you don't know who struck you) means that you're out of options. Besides, there's no way someone could amass enough SLBMs in the Pacific to take out two aspects of the US's nuclear triad without the US knowing who owns those submarines.
- pps43 9y agoI was trying to explain why it is more important for the satellites to quickly detect launches from land. With SLBMs you have other options. You can have your attack submarine shadowing enemy's ballistic missile submarine, or surface ASW ships patrolling the area that can detect the first launch and try to sink the ballistic missile submarine before it can launch its remaining missiles.
- avar 9y agoSure, I'm just replying to your question of "Who do you nuke? [if you don't know who launched a missile against you]", which it seems to me is implicitly assuming that if someone nukes you you must nuke someone back right then and there. That's nobody's nuclear posture, it's just a subset of the posture of the US, Russia, China etc.
- PhantomGremlin 9y agoThe US is peculiar with its nuclear policy in trying to guarantee immediate response This doctrine is called "launch on warning". It hasn't been official US policy for 20 years[1]: In 1997, the Clinton administration changed the official policy away from launch on warning to one of retaliation after withstanding an initial first strike. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Launch_on_warning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Launch_on_warning
- avar 9y agoI'm referring to the policy of still maintaining the systems necessary to launch on warning, past promises about how the systems will be used are just PR. It's not like in a hypothetical scenario where Russia has launched hundreds of ICBMs at the US in a first strike scenario Trump (or any other president) is going to feel beholden to some promise Clinton made in the 90s. The president has absolute power over when and how to launch nuclear weapons, and can do so at a moment's notice, as has been covered extensively in the media in the last year where people seemed shocked that the president had this power since they didn't like the new person in office, even though the power itself hasn't changed in more than half a century.
- cm2187 9y agoPer the long standing tradition in western diplomacy, blame the russians. You might not know why but they will know.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- nasredin 9y agoThe only openly hostile country with SLBMs is Russia. So Russia is probably the best choice. IIRC both have about 60 subs and Russia is back at their post-1991 strength. See the recent WaPo article about them mapping undersea cables.
- izacus 9y agoRussia is hostile? By what metric?
- nasredin 9y agoAnnexation of Crimea in 2014. Support for the only active war on Europe. Destabilization of EU, NATO, US elections. --- Take a look at Russian TV and polls. The Russian government (TV propaganda) and people (Putin has 80+ approval) do not want to be friends. (Unless you are Syria, Iran or North Korea).
- gusfoo 9y ago> Russia is hostile? By what metric? Would the metric of having invaded two sovereign nations in the last few years count?
- HatchedLake721 9y agoBy that metric, isn’t US then the world’s enemy?
- observation 9y agoNon-American here. There has been a role switch. We've always been at war with Eastasia. Where formerly the right harboured the deepest suspicions of Russia, the liberals have taken over the position, probably as a scapegoat for political retreats. Posts on HN such as yours and probably mine will turn gray-white fast since if you haven't sufficiently disavowed Goldstein then you are probably a collaborator.
- pps43 9y agoHow do you know North Korea has no SLBMs? They seem to be making good progress recently.
- rurban 9y agoYou cannot nuke anybody, and you have no possibility of defense neither. That's why those cold war nuclear games were over, as soon as the Russian's had their subs, and the US had Incilik.