5 ms·

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

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.
  - LargoLasskhyfv 6y ago
    Relax. Status-6 has you covered(with Cobalt-60).
- Yetanfou 6y ago
  Well, the threat of nuclear annihilation has helped all the nuclear powers in the world from actually using their weapons, even their low-yield tactical weapons. It might not be logical to bomb them to smithereens after they launched against you but you better hope they assume you will do so in retaliation. As long as everyone thinks you will make good on your promise to launch if attacked, the incentive to attack you is close to zero. And yes, I know the nuclear powers have fought proxy wars outside of their own territory, That is not what this discussion is about, this is about keeping conflicts from going nuclear. The Soviets first and the Russians after were and are rational countries, unlikely to invite their own destruction by launching against any other the other nuclear powers. The same goes for nearly all other nuclear powers with the possible exception of the North Koreans. The real danger with nuclear weapons is the possibility of them ending up in the hands of irrational actors, pick and choose from religiously motivated terrorist groups to ecofascist organisations and anything in between. It is somewhat surprising that there has not yet been a nuclear bombing by such a group given the supposedly sizeable number of nuclear munitions which have gone missing over time. I can only assume that this means that it is harder than thought to make this actually work.
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...

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.
- LargoLasskhyfv 6y ago
  Relax. Status-6 has you covered(with Cobalt-60).
Yetanfou 6y ago
Well, the threat of nuclear annihilation has helped all the nuclear powers in the world from actually using their weapons, even their low-yield tactical weapons. It might not be logical to bomb them to smithereens after they launched against you but you better hope they assume you will do so in retaliation. As long as everyone thinks you will make good on your promise to launch if attacked, the incentive to attack you is close to zero. And yes, I know the nuclear powers have fought proxy wars outside of their own territory, That is not what this discussion is about, this is about keeping conflicts from going nuclear. The Soviets first and the Russians after were and are rational countries, unlikely to invite their own destruction by launching against any other the other nuclear powers. The same goes for nearly all other nuclear powers with the possible exception of the North Koreans. The real danger with nuclear weapons is the possibility of them ending up in the hands of irrational actors, pick and choose from religiously motivated terrorist groups to ecofascist organisations and anything in between. It is somewhat surprising that there has not yet been a nuclear bombing by such a group given the supposedly sizeable number of nuclear munitions which have gone missing over time. I can only assume that this means that it is harder than thought to make this actually work.

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...