4 ms·

> Thus, use of the system would theoretically reduce the likeliness of a false-alarm-triggered retaliation How does not preventing a retaliatory strike reduce

• monocasa 5y ago
  Dead hand can be stopped by the normal command and control system. The idea is that by starting the timer in a way that guarantees the missiles launch if command and control is wiped out, that gives them another option than 'launch the missiles now because we won't get a second chance'.
• bombcar 5y ago
  Because you KNOW that if it hits the fan, they'll launch, you aren't as tempted to early launch thinking that if it IS an attack and aimed at you, you won't be able to order the launch. That probably doesn't clear it up. Let's try again. 1. Nuke incoming, maybe. 2. If it is incoming, it will hit me, and I will be unable to order a retaliation. 3. Therefor, I should order it now to be safe. Instead you replace 3 with "I will arm the dead hand, and it WAS an actual strike, the dead hand will retaliate for me. If it was not, nothing will happen."
• starwind 5y ago
  Assuming Perimeter worked as intended, it would finish the job automatically eliminating the fear that no one would be alive to fire a retaliatory strike. Moscow would not longer have to fire their nuclear weapons in a panic. During the Cold War, MAD implied you had to be suicidal to launch a nuclear strike against another nuclear-armed adversary—the adversary fires everything in retaliation and kills you. So the mission in a first-strike shifted to taking out the adversary's leadership preventing them from launching a retaliatory strike. This created a situation where the US and the Soviets were incentivized to fire at the slightest provocation: if Moscow thinks Washington launched a nuclear strike, Moscow better fire before American nukes come down. With the Dead Hand, Moscow could activate Perimeter which would listen for certain indications of nuclear strikes and if it was determined that a nuclear strike occurred, automatically launch Soviet nuclear weapons in retaliation.
  • tines 5y ago
    Ah, that makes sense. I feel like the way it was originally worded was a bit confusing.
    • starwind 5y ago
      the sentence from wikipedia definitely needs more context
  • mistrial9 5y ago
    try to change the Wikipedia page - go ahead, we are watching ! I mean, most everyone agrees it could be improved right? "wiki" - pedia?
  • tablespoon 5y ago
    > Assuming Perimeter worked as intended, it would finish the job automatically eliminating the fear that no one would be alive to fire a retaliatory strike. Moscow would not longer have to fire their nuclear weapons in a panic. > ...This created a situation where the US and the Soviets were incentivized to fire at the slightest provocation: if Moscow thinks Washington launched a nuclear strike, Moscow better fire before American nukes come down. > With the Dead Hand, Moscow could activate Perimeter which would listen for certain indications of nuclear strikes and if it was determined that a nuclear strike occurred, automatically launch Soviet nuclear weapons in retaliation. If the Russians developed Perimeter to address these concerns, what did the US do? I'd assume it built more resilient command and control infrastructure with more delegation, because Russia seems less comfortable with decentralization than the US, but I don't really know.