3 ms·

US defense to its workforce: Nuclear war can be won (Feb 2022)

18 points by firebaze 4y ago

Ambolia 4y ago
I guess that depends on your definition of "winning" a nuclear. Would getting Europe flattened and losing a couple US cities be considered a win? I guess not for the europeans. Maybe for the US.
ncmncm 4y ago
They can certainly be lost, anyway. "A strange game: the only way to win is not to play."
- JellyBeanThief 4y ago
  Now there's a film that could use a timely remake. I would be interested to see a version of WOPR that incorporates the last few decades of advances in AI.
tomohawk 4y ago
Russia has a functional ABM system. They have S400 systems all around the country at important installations and cities. They are being replaced with S500 systems. These systems are interconnected. It doesn't matter if they can actually win a nuclear war or not. If they believe they can, they might start one. They are already using nukes in a war today. By threatening to use their nukes, they are making use of them. Perhaps the definition of nuclear war should be expanded to include such uses.
- postsantum 4y ago
  There is quite a few "russia experts" on Twitter stating all of russian nukes are rusty piles of metal and most certainly won't fly. The current propaganda is the closest I've seen to what can be described as "being high on own farts"
  - 015UUZn8aEvW 4y ago
    Their missiles seem to work.
  - kbelder 4y ago
    Given the evident shape of Russian forces, I wouldn't be surprised if over half of their missiles couldn't deliver a warhead. But they've got thousands, so if even 25% are viable that's still more than enough to keep MAD relevant.
simonblack 4y ago
"So tell me. Do you feel lucky, Punk? Go ahead. Make my day." It's definitely time for Mother Nature to get rid of its failed experiment, humanity.
_8j50 4y ago
The premise of MAD is the enemy will fire back as with conventional warfare. But if US nukes Moscow, Moscow retaliating by by nuking DC will only assure destruction of St. Petersburg and other cities and locations, not retaliating in fear of further escalation is a very real scenario. But military minds prepare for the worst. The damage caused by the first strike as well as the success of the retaliation attempts can heavily influence victory and escalation. I call it Pharoh's dillema. When Moses caused all the horrible things to happen, the pharoh gave in but changed his mind eventually. But when his precious first born died, he gave in for good. Kind of how nagasaki needed to happen instead of just hiroshima. Realistic capability means little when facing grand and unthinkable loss.
credit_guy 4y ago
This is a fairly superficial critique. The actual report is here: https://atloa.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Guide-to-Nuclear-Deterrence-in-the-Age-of-Great-Power-Competition-Lowther.pdf It's a 444 page book. It's quite informative. It doesn't say "nuclear war can be won". If anything, it cautions that the Russians may hold an advantage in such a war (page 168) "While the Russians, as noted above, speak only about limited initial nuclear strikes and then massive nuclear strikes, there could very easily be something else in the middle. Airmen should give thought about how we handle this eventuality if it happens. The reality is that we will run out of low-yield warheads first and the Russians can launch types of attacks we cannot match."

18 points by firebaze 4y ago

I guess that depends on your definition of "winning" a nuclear. Would getting Europe flattened and losing a couple US cities be considered a win? I guess not for the europeans. Maybe for the US.

ncmncm 4y ago

They can certainly be lost, anyway. "A strange game: the only way to win is not to play."

JellyBeanThief 4y ago
Now there's a film that could use a timely remake. I would be interested to see a version of WOPR that incorporates the last few decades of advances in AI.

tomohawk 4y ago

Russia has a functional ABM system. They have S400 systems all around the country at important installations and cities. They are being replaced with S500 systems. These systems are interconnected. It doesn't matter if they can actually win a nuclear war or not. If they believe they can, they might start one. They are already using nukes in a war today. By threatening to use their nukes, they are making use of them. Perhaps the definition of nuclear war should be expanded to include such uses.

postsantum 4y ago
There is quite a few "russia experts" on Twitter stating all of russian nukes are rusty piles of metal and most certainly won't fly. The current propaganda is the closest I've seen to what can be described as "being high on own farts"
- 015UUZn8aEvW 4y ago
  Their missiles seem to work.
- kbelder 4y ago
  Given the evident shape of Russian forces, I wouldn't be surprised if over half of their missiles couldn't deliver a warhead. But they've got thousands, so if even 25% are viable that's still more than enough to keep MAD relevant.

simonblack 4y ago

"So tell me. Do you feel lucky, Punk? Go ahead. Make my day." It's definitely time for Mother Nature to get rid of its failed experiment, humanity.

_8j50 4y ago

The premise of MAD is the enemy will fire back as with conventional warfare. But if US nukes Moscow, Moscow retaliating by by nuking DC will only assure destruction of St. Petersburg and other cities and locations, not retaliating in fear of further escalation is a very real scenario. But military minds prepare for the worst. The damage caused by the first strike as well as the success of the retaliation attempts can heavily influence victory and escalation. I call it Pharoh's dillema. When Moses caused all the horrible things to happen, the pharoh gave in but changed his mind eventually. But when his precious first born died, he gave in for good. Kind of how nagasaki needed to happen instead of just hiroshima. Realistic capability means little when facing grand and unthinkable loss.

credit_guy 4y ago

This is a fairly superficial critique. The actual report is here: https://atloa.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Guide-to-Nuclear-Deterrence-in-the-Age-of-Great-Power-Competition-Lowther.pdf It's a 444 page book. It's quite informative. It doesn't say "nuclear war can be won". If anything, it cautions that the Russians may hold an advantage in such a war (page 168) "While the Russians, as noted above, speak only about limited initial nuclear strikes and then massive nuclear strikes, there could very easily be something else in the middle. Airmen should give thought about how we handle this eventuality if it happens. The reality is that we will run out of low-yield warheads first and the Russians can launch types of attacks we cannot match."