4 ms·
While in the US, there are people furiously arguing for having ICMBs in silos that you have to launch as soon as you have a warning because if the nukes are com
by Trombone12 6y ago
While in the US, there are people furiously arguing for having ICMBs in silos that you have to launch as soon as you have a warning because if the nukes are coming for the silos the nukes will be "wasted".
But this fact that the silos will be targeted and destroyed is actually a feature because it means it's North Dakota that gets to become a wasteland and that's not really a bit of the US you care about, or so the reasoning goes. The nuclear sponge they call it (the ICBMs silos needing to be targeted by enemy nukes, not North Dakota proper).
- ethbr0 6y agoThis line of reasoning (which is absolutely logical) is why hard target capability for nuclear weapons has a lot of dramatic consequences. If your silos can largely survive an enemy missile, and retain the ability to launch, you can wait for more information to come in. If you silos are expected to be wiped out, say, because the US re-fused their warheads [0] to increase the probability of a silo kill, then it's use-it-or-lose-it with a 15 minute decision time. [0] https://thebulletin.org/2017/03/how-us-nuclear-force-modernization-is-undermining-strategic-stability-the-burst-height-compensating-super-fuze/ https://thebulletin.org/2017/03/how-us-nuclear-force-moderni...
- iso947 6y agoNuclear subs on the other hand will continue to exist and can launch. Why you’d want to us another matter - so your country has just been turned to glass. Why bother retaliations, it’s not going to get your country back, it’s just going to make it worse for any of your citizens that survived.