7 ms·

Detecting launch prep might be useful but it's ultimately just too easy to conceal a launch site to be the complete solution. It doesn't really help with a snea

Detecting launch prep might be useful but it's ultimately just too easy to conceal a launch site to be the complete solution. It doesn't really help with a sneak attack from a major power and US missile defense isn't even good enough yet to reliably stop a NK attack. What the world really needs is to ensure mutually assured destruction is remains in effect. The world cannot afford to let the Russian or Chinese dictators believe they can pull off a first strike and take over the world. The problem right now is that the US is still trying to uphold MAD by itself and it's failing. The US nuclear triad is way out of date and potentially vulnerable to a first strike. We need to decentralize the system among other wealthy and trustworthy countries. All countries in the G7 should have enough nuclear weapons pointed at Russia and China to ensure MAD. And they should develop these weapons independently of the US for increased reliability and redundancy.

muhbags 8y ago
Frankly, I think the country that one should be the most concerned about pulling off a first strike is the USA, not China or Russia...
- staunch 8y ago
  The US has had the opportunity to take over the world multiple times and did not avail itself. Dictatorships are much riskier because of how centralized power is. But the genius of MAD is that it doesn't rely on trust.
- 21 8y ago
  Let me guess, because of Trump, right.
  - mathinpens 8y ago
    more like superfusing, missile defense systems, superior early warning radar...
Harvey-Specter 8y ago
> The US nuclear triad is way out of date and potentially vulnerable to a first strike. How are nuclear submarines vulnerable to a first strike?
- staunch 8y ago
  There's just a handful of Ohio class subs and all of them should have been replaced by more modern and stealthier designs by now. It's conceivable that an enemy could locate most of them and hit them with nuclear torpedos or similar. And even if most of the active subs survived it might not be sufficient to ensure MAD because they don't carry all that many SLBMs.
  - mathinpens 8y ago
    handful = 14 boats on deterrence patrols. there are literally 1000 warheads on active american boomers with superfusing..... If literally one submarine survives this amazing russian counterstrike by taking out every single other ohio class at once that still leaves a counterforce of at most 12*24 = 288 warheads. that is 144 to burn russian cities and 144 to burn chinese cities. to me that seems like a credible strike. and this is still assuming literally NO land based or air deliverable weapons are left. ... considering the spotty accuracy of russian missiles (seriously go look up their CEP ratios - do you even know what CEP stands for? ) I find that scenario very unlikely. China is widely believed to have only 270 warheads... https://thebulletin.org/how-us-nuclear-force-modernization-undermining-strategic-stability-burst-height-compensating-super10578 https://thebulletin.org/how-us-nuclear-force-modernization-u...
    - staunch 8y ago
      1. The US claims to have 14 active but that doesn't account for maintenance problems and the times when they're going in and out of port, something enemies track very closely. The real number is likely even lower than this already low number. 2. Why do you think superfuzes helps in a counter strike? They massively increase accuracy but that's not even the problem to solve in a MAD scenario. Superfuzes help in taking out an enemy's nuclear force while it's on the ground, as in the case of a first strike. You don't need them to hit cities. 3. Counting warheads is misleading because it ignores the possibility of interception or failure of the missiles themselves. Countering some number of those 24 missiles is entirely conceivable. 4. Yes, I know what CEP means because I too have read pages on Wikipedia. Is this your weak attempt at claiming expertise where none likely exists? 5. Here's an open letter from the actual experts that ran the US Strategic Command. They agree with me that the US nuclear triad is in dire need of modernization. https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-u-s-nuclear-triad-needs-an-upgrade-1484179459 https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-u-s-nuclear-triad-needs-an-... Some of their recommendations have already been implemented and a lot more needs to be done before we can rely on MAD being in effect in the future. 6. Putting the hopes of humanity on a few subs that were designed in the 1970s is a very dangerous idea. It's an admission that the triad is broken. When you've let two thirds of your redundant system fail, you've got a very urgent problem.
mathinpens 8y ago
you are misinformed.

muhbags 8y ago

Frankly, I think the country that one should be the most concerned about pulling off a first strike is the USA, not China or Russia...

staunch 8y ago
The US has had the opportunity to take over the world multiple times and did not avail itself. Dictatorships are much riskier because of how centralized power is. But the genius of MAD is that it doesn't rely on trust.
21 8y ago
Let me guess, because of Trump, right.
- mathinpens 8y ago
  more like superfusing, missile defense systems, superior early warning radar...

Harvey-Specter 8y ago

> The US nuclear triad is way out of date and potentially vulnerable to a first strike. How are nuclear submarines vulnerable to a first strike?

staunch 8y ago
There's just a handful of Ohio class subs and all of them should have been replaced by more modern and stealthier designs by now. It's conceivable that an enemy could locate most of them and hit them with nuclear torpedos or similar. And even if most of the active subs survived it might not be sufficient to ensure MAD because they don't carry all that many SLBMs.
- mathinpens 8y ago
  handful = 14 boats on deterrence patrols. there are literally 1000 warheads on active american boomers with superfusing..... If literally one submarine survives this amazing russian counterstrike by taking out every single other ohio class at once that still leaves a counterforce of at most 12*24 = 288 warheads. that is 144 to burn russian cities and 144 to burn chinese cities. to me that seems like a credible strike. and this is still assuming literally NO land based or air deliverable weapons are left. ... considering the spotty accuracy of russian missiles (seriously go look up their CEP ratios - do you even know what CEP stands for? ) I find that scenario very unlikely. China is widely believed to have only 270 warheads... https://thebulletin.org/how-us-nuclear-force-modernization-undermining-strategic-stability-burst-height-compensating-super10578 https://thebulletin.org/how-us-nuclear-force-modernization-u...
  - staunch 8y ago
    1. The US claims to have 14 active but that doesn't account for maintenance problems and the times when they're going in and out of port, something enemies track very closely. The real number is likely even lower than this already low number. 2. Why do you think superfuzes helps in a counter strike? They massively increase accuracy but that's not even the problem to solve in a MAD scenario. Superfuzes help in taking out an enemy's nuclear force while it's on the ground, as in the case of a first strike. You don't need them to hit cities. 3. Counting warheads is misleading because it ignores the possibility of interception or failure of the missiles themselves. Countering some number of those 24 missiles is entirely conceivable. 4. Yes, I know what CEP means because I too have read pages on Wikipedia. Is this your weak attempt at claiming expertise where none likely exists? 5. Here's an open letter from the actual experts that ran the US Strategic Command. They agree with me that the US nuclear triad is in dire need of modernization. https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-u-s-nuclear-triad-needs-an-upgrade-1484179459 https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-u-s-nuclear-triad-needs-an-... Some of their recommendations have already been implemented and a lot more needs to be done before we can rely on MAD being in effect in the future. 6. Putting the hopes of humanity on a few subs that were designed in the 1970s is a very dangerous idea. It's an admission that the triad is broken. When you've let two thirds of your redundant system fail, you've got a very urgent problem.

mathinpens 8y ago

you are misinformed.