3 ms·

This is becoming potentially less true. Most of the deterrent was designed and built in the 70s and 80s based on the first strike threat models at that time.

This is becoming potentially less true. Most of the deterrent was designed and built in the 70s and 80s based on the first strike threat models at that time. Since then, we've seen the development of, among other things: 1. The U.S. no longer maintains a command post on continuous airborne alert. There are two planes on 15 minute ground alert, but they are very vulnerable sitting on a limited set of alert facilities. 2. A couple of new submarine detection methods have gotten some development. Signal processing for sonar has improved. 3. Missile accuracy has improved, particularly in a first strike scenario where satellite navigation would be available. 4. Aerial drones have gotten much more sophisticated and compact, which could jeopardize silos, communications infrastructure, bombers on the ground, and the E-6s and E-4s. 5. Sea based drones have undergone extensive development and might become a serious threat to the submarine force. 6. Anti satellite weapons have advanced significantly, putting communications satellites to transmit launch orders at risk. 7. There has been more work on maneuvering reentry vehicles and hypersonics, which could enable depressed trajectory launches which, if they were accurate enough to destroy silos or the underground launch control facilities, could knock out the ICBMS with less than 10 minutes of warning, which is not enough to retaliate in time.

dragontamer 5y ago
How do you get the SLBMs? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine-launched_ballistic_missile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine-launched_ballistic_m... First-strike only works if you eradicate _all_ of the opponent's nuclear forces. Otherwise, you're left with a few extremely pissed off submarine Admirals / Captains with nuclear-retaliation abilities. ---------- Like, you're skipping a major step here. If you destroy comms and launch a nuclear first strike before the submarines are down, you're screwd. You're basically saying you have confidence that some adversary can 100% detect all of someone else's submarines simultaneously, across the world, with high confidence. Sure, submarine detection has gotten better, but I'm not even sure if you can pinpoint all of the USA's __carriers__ (and near-carriers, like the Marine's Wasp Assault Ships) right now (let alone the USA's submarines). -------- I have severe doubts that anyone in the world has enough satellites in the air for 100% ocean coverage. We don't even have enough satellites in the air for 100% ground coverage. The sea is a very large place. If the technology you allege to exists really does exist, then the MH370 probably would have been found by now. But no: satellites don't fly over 100% of the sea, our computers aren't fast enough to scan everything our eyes-in-the-skys see even if we could scan 100% of the ocean. Furthermore: Satellites are floating up there in the sky. I'm sure the military is just watching each-other's satellites and knowing when they pass by or not. If a Satellite can see you, you can see the Satellite. If you can see the Satellite, you can tell your Submarines where to hide.
- lumost 5y ago
  The biggest risk to the above is that with modern precision weapons a nuclear first strike to remove a nations nuclear retaliation capability. It's debatable whether a large and successful conventional first strike would trigger a retaliatory nuclear strike.
- yccs27 5y ago
  I don't think cameldrv is saying that a first strike is really feasible right now. It's just that in the past, the second strike capability had layers upon layers to make 100% sure no war-hungry commander could delude themselves into thinking they had any chance of disabling it. Now all of the 7 points have eaten away at this certainty. For now, it looks like the equation is still in favor of MAD, but it with a smaller margin. But what if Russia or China has some trick/secret weapon to disable the SLBMs? Or maybe they are just waiting until they know the locations of all carriers/subs - they have many years, and it might only take one random moment of 100% detection! I'm sure the odds are very low, but I'm not comfortable with a gamble when nuclear annihilation on the line. The fact that the dominant military doctrine hinges on some increasingly uncertain calculations is terrifying to me.
  - dragontamer 5y ago
    > But what if Russia or China has some trick/secret weapon to disable the SLBMs? Then do they have a secret / trick to disable all briefcase bombs? The Davy Crockett nuke is under 50lbs and was designed for infantry to use (in a almost certainly suicide manner). And then plenty of other types were invented as time went on. If you can't get them with the big guns, you get them with the small ones, which are still devastating. There are still layers-upon-layers to ensure MAD, as far as I can tell. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_demolition_munition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_demolition_munition And let me remind you: the pipebomb guy from Jan6th hasn't been found yet, despite modern surveillance methods and nearly a year of FBI searching and interviews.
    - hunterb123 5y ago
      Generally the smaller the bomb the easier it is to sneak it past defenses. You couldn't do enough damage for it to matter on a country scale. You'd have to sneak many small payloads by which would be easier to detect, at that point a larger single payload would be easier to sneak in. Radioactive payloads are harder to sneak in as ports are scanned with geiger counters, easier to do pipe bombs or fertilizer bombs, etc, but less effective. To do real collateral damage you have to deliver the payload via the air. Off-topic nitpick, the pipe bombs were planted on Jan 5th near the DNC and RNC headquarters. There's no known relation to the Jan 6th capitol protest.

dragontamer 5y ago

How do you get the SLBMs? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine-launched_ballistic_missile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine-launched_ballistic_m... First-strike only works if you eradicate _all_ of the opponent's nuclear forces. Otherwise, you're left with a few extremely pissed off submarine Admirals / Captains with nuclear-retaliation abilities. ---------- Like, you're skipping a major step here. If you destroy comms and launch a nuclear first strike before the submarines are down, you're screwd. You're basically saying you have confidence that some adversary can 100% detect all of someone else's submarines simultaneously, across the world, with high confidence. Sure, submarine detection has gotten better, but I'm not even sure if you can pinpoint all of the USA's __carriers__ (and near-carriers, like the Marine's Wasp Assault Ships) right now (let alone the USA's submarines). -------- I have severe doubts that anyone in the world has enough satellites in the air for 100% ocean coverage. We don't even have enough satellites in the air for 100% ground coverage. The sea is a very large place. If the technology you allege to exists really does exist, then the MH370 probably would have been found by now. But no: satellites don't fly over 100% of the sea, our computers aren't fast enough to scan everything our eyes-in-the-skys see even if we could scan 100% of the ocean. Furthermore: Satellites are floating up there in the sky. I'm sure the military is just watching each-other's satellites and knowing when they pass by or not. If a Satellite can see you, you can see the Satellite. If you can see the Satellite, you can tell your Submarines where to hide.

lumost 5y ago
The biggest risk to the above is that with modern precision weapons a nuclear first strike to remove a nations nuclear retaliation capability. It's debatable whether a large and successful conventional first strike would trigger a retaliatory nuclear strike.
yccs27 5y ago
I don't think cameldrv is saying that a first strike is really feasible right now. It's just that in the past, the second strike capability had layers upon layers to make 100% sure no war-hungry commander could delude themselves into thinking they had any chance of disabling it. Now all of the 7 points have eaten away at this certainty. For now, it looks like the equation is still in favor of MAD, but it with a smaller margin. But what if Russia or China has some trick/secret weapon to disable the SLBMs? Or maybe they are just waiting until they know the locations of all carriers/subs - they have many years, and it might only take one random moment of 100% detection! I'm sure the odds are very low, but I'm not comfortable with a gamble when nuclear annihilation on the line. The fact that the dominant military doctrine hinges on some increasingly uncertain calculations is terrifying to me.
- dragontamer 5y ago
  > But what if Russia or China has some trick/secret weapon to disable the SLBMs? Then do they have a secret / trick to disable all briefcase bombs? The Davy Crockett nuke is under 50lbs and was designed for infantry to use (in a almost certainly suicide manner). And then plenty of other types were invented as time went on. If you can't get them with the big guns, you get them with the small ones, which are still devastating. There are still layers-upon-layers to ensure MAD, as far as I can tell. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_demolition_munition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_demolition_munition And let me remind you: the pipebomb guy from Jan6th hasn't been found yet, despite modern surveillance methods and nearly a year of FBI searching and interviews.
  - hunterb123 5y ago
    Generally the smaller the bomb the easier it is to sneak it past defenses. You couldn't do enough damage for it to matter on a country scale. You'd have to sneak many small payloads by which would be easier to detect, at that point a larger single payload would be easier to sneak in. Radioactive payloads are harder to sneak in as ports are scanned with geiger counters, easier to do pipe bombs or fertilizer bombs, etc, but less effective. To do real collateral damage you have to deliver the payload via the air. Off-topic nitpick, the pipe bombs were planted on Jan 5th near the DNC and RNC headquarters. There's no known relation to the Jan 6th capitol protest.