8 ms·

This isn't exactly a secret or new information... it was pretty well known when I lived on the peninsula 10+ years ago (thus the username, Poulsbohemian...). Th

This isn't exactly a secret or new information... it was pretty well known when I lived on the peninsula 10+ years ago (thus the username, Poulsbohemian...). There's a state park right near the Hood Canal bridge where it isn't uncommon to watch the submarines come and go in and out of the canal. Always a bit surreal to push your kids on the swings while watching a first strike weapon capable of destroying the world pass by ;-D. I don't recall the name of the street, but there are houses with views across the water to what locals believed to be the dolphin pens...

chipsa 5y ago
Second strike weapon. It is supposed to be able to survive someone else's first strike. First strike weapons can't survive someone else's first strike. It's part of the whole "assured destruction" thing: doesn't matter if you hit us first, you're still going to end up a self lit parking lot afterwards.
- formvoltron 5y ago
  The obvious problem with mutual assured destruction is that an insane person could get ahold of the weapons, launch first, and kill all of current and future humanity. How about not strike back, just try to survive & show future generations of the world how to be. Go live in that other country that isn't radioactive.
  - slingnow 5y ago
    Those don't exist, hence why the OP didn't refer to them. They were referring to something from the actual article.
  - kerneloftruth 5y ago
    "How about not strike back, just try to survive & show future generations of the world how to be. Go live in that other country that isn't radioactive." The word for that is "surrender".
  - whatshisface 5y ago
    Because then a sane person could get ahold of the weapons, launch first, and kill all current opponents.
    - bilbo0s 5y ago
      Even worse, the aggressor would come to believe there are no deleterious consequences to massive nuclear first strikes. As counter intuitive as it may sound, a massive retaliatory strike would render a more safe future world for non combatant nations. Yes, despite what Hollywood may have told you in films, most of those nations would survive. Especially nations in the Southern Hemisphere not called Australia.
      - whatshisface 5y ago
        The US actually believed that for many years, at the start of the atomic age.
  - fourseventy 5y ago
    Because then there would be no deterrent to stop people nuking you.
  - jaywalk 5y ago
    "Turn the other cheek" doesn't work for nukes.
    - hypertele-Xii 5y ago
      Why not? Japan surrendered. They're fine.
      - jaywalk 5y ago
        Nobody else had nukes back then, so the calculus was completely different.
  - hammock 5y ago
    Wish you weren't downvoted, it's a valid question (if not beaten to death). I highly recommend the movie By Dawn's Early Light if you haven't seen it. I will offer no spoilers.
  - johnwheeler 5y ago
    Game theory doesn’t work that way
    - ASalazarMX 5y ago
      If game theory was how reality works, WW3 would have started several times already. Game theory is a guide, not the actual playbook.
      - candiodari 5y ago
        I love what you're doing here. There is a logical, rational argument. And that's MAD (the acronym). You're saying you "obviously" don't believe people will act rational in 2 different ways 1) with second-strike guarantee people will act irrationally and launch nukes 2) without second-strike guarantee people will NOT act rationally and use nuclear strikes as a threat in negotiation, or outright launch and eliminate opponents without warning And you present that people will act irrationally without any evidence, in a way that comes off as smug and arrogant despite YOU being the one that presents the far-fetched argument.
        ASalazarMX 5y ago
        Did Game theory prove that Nixxon's Madman theory was the best approach to handle a scenario of mutually assured destruction? I would have expected that playing an irrational, trigger happy bluffer would not be the best approach. Conversely, I do think that the Soviets expected to play rationally. Let's compare it with the COVID response. Did world leaders listen to their scientists, or did many act irrationally because they have the last word? If some of them don't follow science, why would they follow game theory perfectly? What about their whole pyramid of underlings?
        thrashh 5y ago
        I don’t see how anyone conceivably can compare getting nearly 8 billion individuals to follow COVID orders where failure only requires 1 individual leaking the virus compared to a select few people who can launch nukes who all have to agree to go ahead with it and use that comparison to try to make a point.
  - ALittleLight 5y ago
    I've always thought nuclear war is basically Newcomb's Paradox. You want to be perceived as a one boxer (will retaliate) until the exact moment to make a choice when you two box (hold retaliation to let others live).
  - chipsa 5y ago
    "Mutual Assured Destruction" isn't a policy of anyone. It's a game theoretical idea that requires pre-conditions that don't necessarily apply. I mean, you hit on one of them: insane people. Most of the large nuclear powers have checks on that: the guy at the top can order the launch, but there's a bunch of relaying of the order. So the guys who turn the keys can refuse. So you need a bunch of insane people to make it happen. And... also the Soviets once upon a time had a plan to nuke everyone, not just the US, in order to make sure that you don't have countries that build back up faster than they did. There weren't going to be any other countries that weren't radioactive.
    - MrYellowP 5y ago
      What do you mean, had? Do you have any evidence their doomsday device isn't running anymore?
      - dTal 5y ago
        Dr. Strangelove: Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you *keep* it a *secret*! Why didn't you tell the world, EH? Ambassador de Sadesky: It was to be announced at the Party Congress on Monday. As you know, the Premier loves surprises.
    - salt-thrower 5y ago
      Source on that last bit? How close to reality did that plan really get?
      - crate_barre 5y ago
        I’d imagine world war 2 ending just 2-3 years early prevented nuclear holocaust. Certainly the Nazis and Soviets were not going to have any reluctance pushing that button.
  - MrYellowP 5y ago
    "Oh hey, we nuked those guys and nobody cared! Let's nuke some other country too!"
thelittleone 5y ago
No doubt surreal, but a single sub destroy the world? That piqued my interest so took a quick look and found an article [1]. This article states that "even a single vessel [submarine] could reduce as many as 288 city-sized targets into radioactive ash in less than 30 minutes." Later in the article they say that the Ohio class is capable of carrying up to 24 UGM-133 Trident II D5 submarine launched ballistic missiles. Each ballistic missile can carry as many as 12 W88 475 kiloton thermonuclear warheads. For comparison, the one that struck Hiroshima is estimated to have been 10-20 kiloton. So the Ohio class can delivery up to 472 x 12 or 5,700 kilotons (5.7 megaton) or ~285 x the energy release of Hiroshima. - EDIT: 472 x 12 X 24 = 137 megatons or 6,796 the energy release of Hiroshima. By comparison scientists have been speculating the scale of the energy release of the eruption in Tonga [2]: "Jim Garvin, chief scientist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, said the eruption of the Hunga-Tonga-Hunga-Ha'apai volcano on January 15 released "hundreds of times the equivalent mechanical energy of the Hiroshima nuclear explosion". The article goes on to say that preliminary estimates are between 4-18 megatons. That energy release created a cloud ~650km / 400mi in diameter. "The cloud would obscure most of Great Britain and the east coast of Ireland. It is almost the same size as mainland Spain.". EDIT: So an Ohio class SSBN could unleash ~136 megatons which is 7.5-34 x the energy release of the Tonga eruption. The eruption occurred undersea whereas nuclear warheads detonate above ground as an "air blast" or close to sea level as a "surface blast". "Tactically, surface detonations can be seen as an effective means to obliterate a specific target and surrounding ground forces." [4]. "Unlike surface blasts, air blasts produce almost no local fallout upon detonation. Instead, air blasts are more effective in producing high levels of over-pressure over larger areas and increased yields of thermal radiation.". So what's my conclusion from this short research? The sources suggest an Ohio class submarine could destroy 288 cities in 30 minutes. No argument there. But destroy the world? It seems evident Earth itself would remain in it's current spherical shape but it would be terribly perhaps irreversibly poisoned, taking a lot if not all life with it. As Nevil Shute puts it in "On the Beach" (New York: William Morrow and Co., 1957) "there would be no “over there,” there would only be “here.” Whether scarred by blast and fire from a nuclear war, no place would be spared the inescapable lethality of the resulting radiation". "Global thermonuclear war is just that, a war against the globe, against the Earth itself." Thanks parent for fueling a perfect little distraction from my long list of important tasks today :) [1]https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/these-5-submarines-could-destroy-world-30-minutes-117891 https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/these-5-submarines-co... [2]https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/24/asia/tonga-hiroshima-bomb-volcano-intl-hnk-scn-scli/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/24/asia/tonga-hiroshima-bomb... [3]https://graphics.reuters.com/TONGA-VOLCANO/lgpdwjyqbvo/ https://graphics.reuters.com/TONGA-VOLCANO/lgpdwjyqbvo/ [4]http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2019/ph241/abbate2/ http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2019/ph241/abbate2/
UncleOxidant 5y ago
We lived right on Hood Canal a few miles south of the sub base in the early 80s. Such a beautiful, peaceful place but pretty much right at ground zero. As a high school student I worked a summer at the Naval Undersea Warfare and Engineering station. We even had our Senior Prom at the on-base restaurant there at Bangor.

chipsa 5y ago

Second strike weapon. It is supposed to be able to survive someone else's first strike. First strike weapons can't survive someone else's first strike. It's part of the whole "assured destruction" thing: doesn't matter if you hit us first, you're still going to end up a self lit parking lot afterwards.

formvoltron 5y ago
The obvious problem with mutual assured destruction is that an insane person could get ahold of the weapons, launch first, and kill all of current and future humanity. How about not strike back, just try to survive & show future generations of the world how to be. Go live in that other country that isn't radioactive.
- slingnow 5y ago
  Those don't exist, hence why the OP didn't refer to them. They were referring to something from the actual article.
- kerneloftruth 5y ago
  "How about not strike back, just try to survive & show future generations of the world how to be. Go live in that other country that isn't radioactive." The word for that is "surrender".
- whatshisface 5y ago
  Because then a sane person could get ahold of the weapons, launch first, and kill all current opponents.
  - bilbo0s 5y ago
    Even worse, the aggressor would come to believe there are no deleterious consequences to massive nuclear first strikes. As counter intuitive as it may sound, a massive retaliatory strike would render a more safe future world for non combatant nations. Yes, despite what Hollywood may have told you in films, most of those nations would survive. Especially nations in the Southern Hemisphere not called Australia.
    - whatshisface 5y ago
      The US actually believed that for many years, at the start of the atomic age.
- fourseventy 5y ago
  Because then there would be no deterrent to stop people nuking you.
- jaywalk 5y ago
  "Turn the other cheek" doesn't work for nukes.
  - hypertele-Xii 5y ago
    Why not? Japan surrendered. They're fine.
    - jaywalk 5y ago
      Nobody else had nukes back then, so the calculus was completely different.
- hammock 5y ago
  Wish you weren't downvoted, it's a valid question (if not beaten to death). I highly recommend the movie By Dawn's Early Light if you haven't seen it. I will offer no spoilers.
- johnwheeler 5y ago
  Game theory doesn’t work that way
  - ASalazarMX 5y ago
    If game theory was how reality works, WW3 would have started several times already. Game theory is a guide, not the actual playbook.
    - candiodari 5y ago
      I love what you're doing here. There is a logical, rational argument. And that's MAD (the acronym). You're saying you "obviously" don't believe people will act rational in 2 different ways 1) with second-strike guarantee people will act irrationally and launch nukes 2) without second-strike guarantee people will NOT act rationally and use nuclear strikes as a threat in negotiation, or outright launch and eliminate opponents without warning And you present that people will act irrationally without any evidence, in a way that comes off as smug and arrogant despite YOU being the one that presents the far-fetched argument.
      - ASalazarMX 5y ago
        Did Game theory prove that Nixxon's Madman theory was the best approach to handle a scenario of mutually assured destruction? I would have expected that playing an irrational, trigger happy bluffer would not be the best approach. Conversely, I do think that the Soviets expected to play rationally. Let's compare it with the COVID response. Did world leaders listen to their scientists, or did many act irrationally because they have the last word? If some of them don't follow science, why would they follow game theory perfectly? What about their whole pyramid of underlings?
        thrashh 5y ago
        I don’t see how anyone conceivably can compare getting nearly 8 billion individuals to follow COVID orders where failure only requires 1 individual leaking the virus compared to a select few people who can launch nukes who all have to agree to go ahead with it and use that comparison to try to make a point.
- ALittleLight 5y ago
  I've always thought nuclear war is basically Newcomb's Paradox. You want to be perceived as a one boxer (will retaliate) until the exact moment to make a choice when you two box (hold retaliation to let others live).
- chipsa 5y ago
  "Mutual Assured Destruction" isn't a policy of anyone. It's a game theoretical idea that requires pre-conditions that don't necessarily apply. I mean, you hit on one of them: insane people. Most of the large nuclear powers have checks on that: the guy at the top can order the launch, but there's a bunch of relaying of the order. So the guys who turn the keys can refuse. So you need a bunch of insane people to make it happen. And... also the Soviets once upon a time had a plan to nuke everyone, not just the US, in order to make sure that you don't have countries that build back up faster than they did. There weren't going to be any other countries that weren't radioactive.
  - MrYellowP 5y ago
    What do you mean, had? Do you have any evidence their doomsday device isn't running anymore?
    - dTal 5y ago
      Dr. Strangelove: Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you *keep* it a *secret*! Why didn't you tell the world, EH? Ambassador de Sadesky: It was to be announced at the Party Congress on Monday. As you know, the Premier loves surprises.
  - salt-thrower 5y ago
    Source on that last bit? How close to reality did that plan really get?
    - crate_barre 5y ago
      I’d imagine world war 2 ending just 2-3 years early prevented nuclear holocaust. Certainly the Nazis and Soviets were not going to have any reluctance pushing that button.
- MrYellowP 5y ago
  "Oh hey, we nuked those guys and nobody cared! Let's nuke some other country too!"

thelittleone 5y ago

No doubt surreal, but a single sub destroy the world? That piqued my interest so took a quick look and found an article [1]. This article states that "even a single vessel [submarine] could reduce as many as 288 city-sized targets into radioactive ash in less than 30 minutes." Later in the article they say that the Ohio class is capable of carrying up to 24 UGM-133 Trident II D5 submarine launched ballistic missiles. Each ballistic missile can carry as many as 12 W88 475 kiloton thermonuclear warheads. For comparison, the one that struck Hiroshima is estimated to have been 10-20 kiloton. So the Ohio class can delivery up to 472 x 12 or 5,700 kilotons (5.7 megaton) or ~285 x the energy release of Hiroshima. - EDIT: 472 x 12 X 24 = 137 megatons or 6,796 the energy release of Hiroshima. By comparison scientists have been speculating the scale of the energy release of the eruption in Tonga [2]: "Jim Garvin, chief scientist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, said the eruption of the Hunga-Tonga-Hunga-Ha'apai volcano on January 15 released "hundreds of times the equivalent mechanical energy of the Hiroshima nuclear explosion". The article goes on to say that preliminary estimates are between 4-18 megatons. That energy release created a cloud ~650km / 400mi in diameter. "The cloud would obscure most of Great Britain and the east coast of Ireland. It is almost the same size as mainland Spain.". EDIT: So an Ohio class SSBN could unleash ~136 megatons which is 7.5-34 x the energy release of the Tonga eruption. The eruption occurred undersea whereas nuclear warheads detonate above ground as an "air blast" or close to sea level as a "surface blast". "Tactically, surface detonations can be seen as an effective means to obliterate a specific target and surrounding ground forces." [4]. "Unlike surface blasts, air blasts produce almost no local fallout upon detonation. Instead, air blasts are more effective in producing high levels of over-pressure over larger areas and increased yields of thermal radiation.". So what's my conclusion from this short research? The sources suggest an Ohio class submarine could destroy 288 cities in 30 minutes. No argument there. But destroy the world? It seems evident Earth itself would remain in it's current spherical shape but it would be terribly perhaps irreversibly poisoned, taking a lot if not all life with it. As Nevil Shute puts it in "On the Beach" (New York: William Morrow and Co., 1957) "there would be no “over there,” there would only be “here.” Whether scarred by blast and fire from a nuclear war, no place would be spared the inescapable lethality of the resulting radiation". "Global thermonuclear war is just that, a war against the globe, against the Earth itself." Thanks parent for fueling a perfect little distraction from my long list of important tasks today :) [1]https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/these-5-submarines-could-destroy-world-30-minutes-117891 https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/these-5-submarines-co... [2]https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/24/asia/tonga-hiroshima-bomb-volcano-intl-hnk-scn-scli/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/24/asia/tonga-hiroshima-bomb... [3]https://graphics.reuters.com/TONGA-VOLCANO/lgpdwjyqbvo/ https://graphics.reuters.com/TONGA-VOLCANO/lgpdwjyqbvo/ [4]http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2019/ph241/abbate2/ http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2019/ph241/abbate2/

UncleOxidant 5y ago

We lived right on Hood Canal a few miles south of the sub base in the early 80s. Such a beautiful, peaceful place but pretty much right at ground zero. As a high school student I worked a summer at the Naval Undersea Warfare and Engineering station. We even had our Senior Prom at the on-base restaurant there at Bangor.