6 ms·

The U.S nuclear protocols are secret and very little is known about their current situation. Optimal deterrence position is when enemy is uncertain what the pro

by nabla9 6y ago

The U.S nuclear protocols are secret and very little is known about their current situation. Optimal deterrence position is when enemy is uncertain what the protocol is but the US actually has launch after confirmation. Land launched ICBM's are not absolutely necessary for US deterrence anymore, so launching them before they are destroyed is not necessary. While the US certainly maintains the technical ability to have launch on warning, it seems that it might not be the policy. Clinton Issues New Guidelines on U.S. Nuclear Weapons Doctrine https://www.armscontrol.org/act/1997-11/news/clinton-issues-new-guidelines-us-nuclear-weapons-doctrine https://www.armscontrol.org/act/1997-11/news/clinton-issues-... > ... while the United States has always had the "technical capability" to implement a policy of launch on warning, it has chosen not to do so. "Our policy is to confirm that we are under nuclear attack with actual detonations before retaliating," he said.

rhino369 6y ago
And presumably the choice to fire back before our ICBMs are destroyed by incoming nuclear weapons would take into account the size of the confirmed launches by an enemy. If you get confirmation that Russia launched 1-10 ICBMs, well maybe you are reading it wrong, and the loss of 100-200 missiles silos if you are wrong won't make much difference. But if you get confirmation Russia is launching 100 ICBMs, its bombers are in the air, and its subs are rising to launch depth, well lets just hope that's hard to fuck up that confirmation.
- nabla9 6y ago
  The US has enough submarine launched ICBM's to retaliate.
  - krono 6y ago
    Well, congratulations. The real winners will be the ones who never saw it coming.
- iso1631 6y ago
  > But if you get confirmation Russia is launching 100 ICBMs, its bombers are in the air, and its subs are rising to launch depth, well lets just hope that's hard to fuck up that confirmation. Will nuking Russia in that situation prevent the US from being nuked? Will it help any American citizen anywhere in the world?
  - dbtc 6y ago
    Yeah this stuff is ridiculous, but I think the idea is not that it would help anyone but that the “policy” would deter the first aggression.
  - jjk166 6y ago
    In an all out nuclear exchange with Russia, the US is estimated to lose 15-30 million people. Terrible, but only 5-10% of the population, mostly from a few major population centers. Even if the government and military collapses, the American people will still exist after getting nuked, and presumably they won't want the Russians to have a large, unscathed military.
  - rhino369 6y ago
    Unless the Russians were total psychopaths, their first strike would probably be aimed mostly at our nuclear missiles and the military at large (i.e., a counterforce strike), and not on purposefully destroying our population (i.e., a countervalue strike). So our nukes would reduce their ability to do second, third, etc. nuclear strikes. It would also destroy their ability to continue to make war, which would prevent an invasion of Europe or the USA after the radiation levels drop. If we had a policy to wait a long time, the Russians could strike our missile bases, large military bases, aircraft carriers, naval bases. But unless we acted fast, our military forces would be in shambles even though the eastern seaboard, Chicago, SOCAL, the major texas cities, etc. are all still standing. We'd still have second strike weapons but they are unusable if we still had domestic civilian targets to worry about. No sane President or General would order a coutervalue strike when faced with a counterforce strike from an enemy. If we let the enemy successfully first strike the United States, Mutual Assured Destruction goes out the window. TL;DR; the Russians could "win" a nuclear war unless we shoot back soon. And if the Russians were total psychopaths who target our cities in a first strike? We have to be prepared to respond in kind or else we incentivize a one sided attack.
- dogma1138 6y ago
  It would be more than that, a launch without any pre-existing escalation is unlikely, I’m not sure what the US or Russia for that matter would do in case a “rogue” launch. We know from a few previous close calls that the Russians didn’t launch when they erroneously detected launches. Quite likely any nuclear engagement would be preceded by an adversary trying to destroy or minimize your second strike capabilities first. The US keeps its SLBM fleet in a rotation that would always be optimal for a second strike against Russia. Russia increasing its anti submarine activity or even destroying US subs would likely be seen as a prelude to a first strike. So Russia spending 3 months pushing US subs into a kill box further and further form optimal launch positions and then the US detects a ground based launch no matter how small would likely invoke a ground based launch from the US before anything actually hits.
- LargoLasskhyfv 6y ago
  What do you mean by launch depth? And how would that detection supposedly work? I'm asking because AFAIK they don't need that anymore, at least not up to periscope depth. (Unsure here, something like 30 to 20meters in my mind) edit: By that I mean I'm seriously doubting the capability of anyone to have sufficient coverage by whichever means to detect that in realtime.
  - ethbr0 6y ago
    ICBMs are rockets... which means the heavier, the more fuel for a given range, even heavier with the extra fuel, etc. (aka the tyranny of the rocket equation). SLBMs also need to withstand water pressure, increasing with depth. Withstanding pressure requires reinforcement, which means weight, which... see above. So while there are no "official" numbers as to what constitutes launch depth, physics dictates there is a maximum practical number. So what to do about it? Well, nuclear attack submarines generally exist to try and follow nuclear ballistic missile submarines. Any any given point in time, >0 and <all ballistic missile submarines are being shadowed, likely without knowing it. Consequently, were a substantial launch order given... a lot of those missile subs would start a very synchronized and quick rise to shallower depths, as well as possibly creating mechanical noise related to launch preparations. After that, well, that's what preset plans of action in different threat scenarios are for...

by nabla9 6y ago

rhino369 6y ago

And presumably the choice to fire back before our ICBMs are destroyed by incoming nuclear weapons would take into account the size of the confirmed launches by an enemy. If you get confirmation that Russia launched 1-10 ICBMs, well maybe you are reading it wrong, and the loss of 100-200 missiles silos if you are wrong won't make much difference. But if you get confirmation Russia is launching 100 ICBMs, its bombers are in the air, and its subs are rising to launch depth, well lets just hope that's hard to fuck up that confirmation.

nabla9 6y ago
The US has enough submarine launched ICBM's to retaliate.
- krono 6y ago
  Well, congratulations. The real winners will be the ones who never saw it coming.
iso1631 6y ago
> But if you get confirmation Russia is launching 100 ICBMs, its bombers are in the air, and its subs are rising to launch depth, well lets just hope that's hard to fuck up that confirmation. Will nuking Russia in that situation prevent the US from being nuked? Will it help any American citizen anywhere in the world?
- dbtc 6y ago
  Yeah this stuff is ridiculous, but I think the idea is not that it would help anyone but that the “policy” would deter the first aggression.
- jjk166 6y ago
  In an all out nuclear exchange with Russia, the US is estimated to lose 15-30 million people. Terrible, but only 5-10% of the population, mostly from a few major population centers. Even if the government and military collapses, the American people will still exist after getting nuked, and presumably they won't want the Russians to have a large, unscathed military.
- rhino369 6y ago
  Unless the Russians were total psychopaths, their first strike would probably be aimed mostly at our nuclear missiles and the military at large (i.e., a counterforce strike), and not on purposefully destroying our population (i.e., a countervalue strike). So our nukes would reduce their ability to do second, third, etc. nuclear strikes. It would also destroy their ability to continue to make war, which would prevent an invasion of Europe or the USA after the radiation levels drop. If we had a policy to wait a long time, the Russians could strike our missile bases, large military bases, aircraft carriers, naval bases. But unless we acted fast, our military forces would be in shambles even though the eastern seaboard, Chicago, SOCAL, the major texas cities, etc. are all still standing. We'd still have second strike weapons but they are unusable if we still had domestic civilian targets to worry about. No sane President or General would order a coutervalue strike when faced with a counterforce strike from an enemy. If we let the enemy successfully first strike the United States, Mutual Assured Destruction goes out the window. TL;DR; the Russians could "win" a nuclear war unless we shoot back soon. And if the Russians were total psychopaths who target our cities in a first strike? We have to be prepared to respond in kind or else we incentivize a one sided attack.
dogma1138 6y ago
It would be more than that, a launch without any pre-existing escalation is unlikely, I’m not sure what the US or Russia for that matter would do in case a “rogue” launch. We know from a few previous close calls that the Russians didn’t launch when they erroneously detected launches. Quite likely any nuclear engagement would be preceded by an adversary trying to destroy or minimize your second strike capabilities first. The US keeps its SLBM fleet in a rotation that would always be optimal for a second strike against Russia. Russia increasing its anti submarine activity or even destroying US subs would likely be seen as a prelude to a first strike. So Russia spending 3 months pushing US subs into a kill box further and further form optimal launch positions and then the US detects a ground based launch no matter how small would likely invoke a ground based launch from the US before anything actually hits.
LargoLasskhyfv 6y ago
What do you mean by launch depth? And how would that detection supposedly work? I'm asking because AFAIK they don't need that anymore, at least not up to periscope depth. (Unsure here, something like 30 to 20meters in my mind) edit: By that I mean I'm seriously doubting the capability of anyone to have sufficient coverage by whichever means to detect that in realtime.
- ethbr0 6y ago
  ICBMs are rockets... which means the heavier, the more fuel for a given range, even heavier with the extra fuel, etc. (aka the tyranny of the rocket equation). SLBMs also need to withstand water pressure, increasing with depth. Withstanding pressure requires reinforcement, which means weight, which... see above. So while there are no "official" numbers as to what constitutes launch depth, physics dictates there is a maximum practical number. So what to do about it? Well, nuclear attack submarines generally exist to try and follow nuclear ballistic missile submarines. Any any given point in time, >0 and <all ballistic missile submarines are being shadowed, likely without knowing it. Consequently, were a substantial launch order given... a lot of those missile subs would start a very synchronized and quick rise to shallower depths, as well as possibly creating mechanical noise related to launch preparations. After that, well, that's what preset plans of action in different threat scenarios are for...