6 ms·

Ask HN: So what IS the end game for any WW3 scenario?

16 points by EwanG 4y ago

Given today's announcements about Russia pulling out of START, I got to thinking about whether it makes a real difference. I mean, once any one of the major atomic powers decides to "go for broke" I don't see any way that they don't all have to use most of their missiles. Even if it's only two of them initially, it's not likely any of the others want to wait to see if one of the others has enough left to impose their will on the rest. At which point - then what? None of the major atomic powers has enough (if any) missiles left to be much of a deterrent, and none of them will have armed forces that are any more prepared to do an Atlantic or Pacific crossing and invasion than they are now. So it's just that much worse for everyone?

andrewfromx 4y ago
I feel like adjusting the doomsday clock another few seconds to midnight after reading this.
legrande 4y ago
The whole world is held together by nukes. Hiroshima & Nagasaki were outliers though. If we do use them, it has long been a prediction that 'intelligent' lifeforms eventually wipe themselves out, rather than being star-faring and preserving the species on other planets (Mars as Plan B). This is a test of how enlightened we are as a species.
duffyjp 4y ago
> The New START treaty, signed in 2010 by U.S. President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, limits each country to no more than 1,550 deployed nuclear warheads and 700 deployed missiles and bombers. I'm not sure how much worse mutual assured destruction could get by going over what they already have.
hnthrowaway0315 4y ago
Wait until someone starts to conduct nuclear tests, not simulated.
Silverback_VII 4y ago
It kind of sad that leaders in the West and Russia are gambling with the future of humanity, now that we are very close to bring life to other planets.
- revskill 4y ago
  The core issue is still there: Power can destroy other planets again. Human being is self-destructive.
  - BBC_Goons 4y ago
    Moving away from consumption based growth and imposing ideologies (inc. religious) could stop the need to conquer and expand. If it is possible at all is anyone's guess. It would take the one in power to lead the change (US), but having seen what they have been up to it is quite hard. The alternative is the rise of a new power that is willing to lead a change.
- jareds 4y ago
  How do you figure we are close to bringing a meaningful amount of life to other planets? Just because we have the ability to put a few people on Mars like we did the Moon if we focus on it doesn't mean those three to six people will be able to create a civilization. They'll get back on there ship and head home. I realize becoming a true space fairing civilization may follow an exponential curve but were so far down on the curve with no guarantee of exponential progress that I wouldn't bet any amount of money that mattered on someone four generations from me being able to life in space or on another planet with no support from earth.
- randomopining 4y ago
  The wet dream of space population always rubs me the wrong way. Basically all of these purely human issues will exist anywhere we go until we solve them. Earth is the only planet we know of that is perfectly made for us. No other place can fit us as well. And yet we can't even utilize it properly. Given that, it's almost childish to think that our #1 priority is to populate other random nearby planets.
- 4y ago
ianburrell 4y ago
There hasn't been much thinking about multilateral nuclear war. Until recently, China didn't have enough missiles to make it an issue. I don't think the smaller powers were considered; UK and France were on the US side and the others didn't matter. Also, Russia and China were probably targeted together. One factor is that don't need that many missiles for retaliatory strike; a single SSBN would be enough. The place where calculation could change is first strike since that takes lots of warheads and would leave attacker depleted. The other issue is keeping uninvolved country from launching, better tracking would help with that. But is good argument for not having nuclear war. Also, there wasn't much thought about strategy after nuclear war. I think it was assumed that the decision makers and most of their countries would be dead. Collapse of civilization and nuclear winter would mean that survival is the focus. Nobody will be worried about "imposing their will" but not starving.
ActorNightly 4y ago
This is my personal belief, which I have no way to substantiate, and solely statistical, but it helps me sleep at night or so to speak. Nobody spends more on defense than US. Also, the new technology that you hear about today is essentially declassified tech from ~20 years ago. I remember reading in the past about Boeing doing experiments with a 747 carrying a giant laser that could lock on and fry ICBMs. There was also stuff like this 14 years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBMU6l6GsdM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBMU6l6GsdM Extrapolating to today, I firmly believe that US (and probably NATO and other countries who share intel) are watching Russian launch sites closely, ready to drop kinetic warheads from orbit at the first sign of activation, not to mention multiple layers of defense with kinetic kill vehicles, lasers, EMPS, jammers, e.t.c. That is assuming, we don't have stuxnet like malware hiding in computer systems that would just magically cause the missiles to fail. After all, Russian military was shown to be wildly incompetent (which US probably already knew), so that translates to easy infiltration/intel and creation of a safeguard plan to counter anything they have.
- poly_morphis 4y ago
  Me too. While I have some doubts, I also think that the US is not unprepared for a scenario where nukes are flying. I think Russia is still a significant threat, but also that the US has, given their budget, developed/implemented technology the public doesn't even know about to counter this possibility. In fact, I would be beyond shocked if the US hasn't developed anything like that. I certainly would like to not be in a scenario where the public finds out about possible technology like this, because it would probably mean war has already broken out.
  - badpun 4y ago
    What's the benefit of hiding such technology? Any viable deterring capabilities the US has should be loudly advertised.
- kleer001 4y ago
  > ready to drop kinetic warheads from orbit I don't think those are a thing. It's so much easier and cheaper and faster to launch things from the ground (or water).
simonblack 4y ago
The nukes will be flying. At least 10-20 cities in the US, EU, China, Russia (and possibly other countries as well) will be destroyed. Though I see it very likely that thousands of nukes will fly, under the 'use it or lose it' policy. Those that don't die immediately will wish they had.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
moomoo11 4y ago
There is no end game when the end game is MAD. Neither did I nor 99.999% of the planet made up these rules, but they're just part of the game. Worst case scenario we revert back to living like its 900AD except with radiation. That being said, humanity will go on. Even if the entire nuclear arsenal was detonated like a fireworks show gone wrong, I highly doubt all places on the earth will be affected. Hell we've been hit by a massive asteroid once, and life still went on. Highly doubt a few thousand nukes going off will be any close to that bad. Also its not like they're gonna nuke the shit out of Africa, S. America, or some pacific islands. Even if nuclear winter will suck and what not, again - some people will survive and for me personally that's all that matters. I'm not one of the uber rich (and no I don't mean the trust fund kid nor the startup founder who had a 9 figure exit), so I don't really care nor know what they'll be doing. But I'm sure some of them will already have prepared for this scenario. If I was uber rich, I know I probably would have. Most of us plebs will most likely perish. I will most likely be one of the first ones gone because I live in the bay area. Some of us will survive though. Instead of slinging infrastructure or loading up test data, we will be forced to survive at all and any costs. If I survive, I am taking zero chances with people I don't know or trust. My water, my food, my shelter. Again, no hard feelings and I have no expectations from others- I want to survive as long as possible because why not... Until we have a New California Republic or something like that, on God zero chances. Plus, it would be cool to rebuild. End of the day, its just a game for better or worse. Might as well play it. I might get in a car accident and perish later today lol in which.. no ww3 for me.
badpun 4y ago
There's a computer game about it, you have go to through killing a lot of rats first until you get into the good parts though.

ianburrell 4y ago

The US is working on missile defense and there are technologies that might change things in decade or two. But there is no way that they have been deployed in secret. The scale would be too large to hide and the government likes to brag. Deploying a full system requires SpaceX Starship and the number of launches would be large. Even then, it may not be possible to have system that works against major attack. The 747 laser was retired 9 years ago. They are working on laser firing drones but don't have any prototypes after years. Also, these are boost phase lasers which are fine with North Korea since can get close but don't work with Russia. There is talk about kinetic kill vehicles in space but I haven't found any concrete programs. This sometimes gets mixed with the Space Development Agency satellite constellationm but that is more about communication and detection. Kinetic warheads are not a thing. There haven't been enough satellite launches to put anything in orbit. They need to be big, both to have enough mass and for the rocket to get down. One big problem is that it takes 15-30 minutes for them to descend; shorter time requires a bigger rocket. The reaction time is one reason they are a bad idea since target can't tell if they are nukes or first strike. EMP and jammers don't work against nuclear missiles. They are self-guided. The electronics, like a lot of military electronics, are hardened and tested.