3 ms·

According to MAD game theory, if a true doomsday style nuclear war were to happen, the initiator would need to deliver a crushing first strike to have any hope

According to MAD game theory, if a true doomsday style nuclear war were to happen, the initiator would need to deliver a crushing first strike to have any hope of surviving (by preventing a significant counterstrike). The hypersonics that Russia and China have publicly tested recently do seem capable of doing that. So, the goal would be to live in a place unlikely to be in the top ~1000 target locations list. The difference between being 999 most likely to be hit vs. 1001 might be the enough. If that logic is correct, maybe live somewhere with very low density of humans, away from the coasts, no critical infrastructure nearby, no remarkable geographic landmarks, and large amounts of undeveloped natural resources (which a future occupier may want to have). Which sounds a bit like saying "live on a Native American reservation." Maybe destiny is for this content to be returned to its original owners...

AbrahamParangi 5y ago
Do hypersonics meaningfully impact first-strike capabilities? ICBMs are substantially faster than what can be achieved fully in-atmosphere.
- Ourgon 5y ago
  The point with hypersonic missiles is that they can manoeuvrer until the terminal part of their trajectory, this in contrast to ballistic missiles which are on a set course past the boost phase. This makes it harder to shield against hypersonic missiles which is useful both for first-strike - more of your missiles will hit their targets - as well as when executing a counterstrike.
berberous 5y ago
Wouldn’t the targets mostly be military (sites housing nukes or otherwise militarily important) and perhaps a few cities to largely neutralize them from doing anything other than kick their wounds (NY, DC, LA)? I don’t see why they should want to destroy more minor cities as well (Baltimore, Miami, Charleston, etc) for no reason; seems like it doesn’t meaningful add protection when doing a first strike
- themadturk 5y ago
  Directly targeting cities is hardly necessary to destroy them. Can you imagine Baltimore surviving weapons targeting the Washington DC area? Many cities of any size are near important military/industrial/infrastructure targets, probably targeted by multiple warheads. Even if they're not on the first-strike list, nukes will be targeting dams, factories, energy hubs, transportation hubs, airports, seaports, communications and commercial centers, as well as military targets (for example, in the Puget Sound region, we are royally screwed, even if they just hit a subset of Naval Base Bremerton, Naval Base Everett, Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Naval Base Bangor, the Indian Island weapons depot, Whidbey Island Naval Air Station, Boeing's plants in Renton and Everett, the Port of Seattle, the Port of Tacoma, Seatac airport...the list goes on). The "minor" cities you mention are all seaports, and all have international airports capable of hosting military aircraft.

AbrahamParangi 5y ago

Do hypersonics meaningfully impact first-strike capabilities? ICBMs are substantially faster than what can be achieved fully in-atmosphere.

Ourgon 5y ago
The point with hypersonic missiles is that they can manoeuvrer until the terminal part of their trajectory, this in contrast to ballistic missiles which are on a set course past the boost phase. This makes it harder to shield against hypersonic missiles which is useful both for first-strike - more of your missiles will hit their targets - as well as when executing a counterstrike.

berberous 5y ago

Wouldn’t the targets mostly be military (sites housing nukes or otherwise militarily important) and perhaps a few cities to largely neutralize them from doing anything other than kick their wounds (NY, DC, LA)? I don’t see why they should want to destroy more minor cities as well (Baltimore, Miami, Charleston, etc) for no reason; seems like it doesn’t meaningful add protection when doing a first strike

themadturk 5y ago
Directly targeting cities is hardly necessary to destroy them. Can you imagine Baltimore surviving weapons targeting the Washington DC area? Many cities of any size are near important military/industrial/infrastructure targets, probably targeted by multiple warheads. Even if they're not on the first-strike list, nukes will be targeting dams, factories, energy hubs, transportation hubs, airports, seaports, communications and commercial centers, as well as military targets (for example, in the Puget Sound region, we are royally screwed, even if they just hit a subset of Naval Base Bremerton, Naval Base Everett, Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Naval Base Bangor, the Indian Island weapons depot, Whidbey Island Naval Air Station, Boeing's plants in Renton and Everett, the Port of Seattle, the Port of Tacoma, Seatac airport...the list goes on). The "minor" cities you mention are all seaports, and all have international airports capable of hosting military aircraft.