4 ms·

Conspiracy: they are planted in Russiam and Chinese cities. Reality: it would make more sense to fabricate the weapon in secret and hide its existence to begin

by _8j50 4y ago

Conspiracy: they are planted in Russiam and Chinese cities. Reality: it would make more sense to fabricate the weapon in secret and hide its existence to begin with than to document it well and use it for secret stuff.

ianburrell 4y ago
Why would they have to fabricate in secret or use crashed bombs? The number and location of nuclear weapons is tightly held secret. There are so many that there is no way someone else could track them. Anyone in US would wonder where why bombs are at "storage facility". Also, putting nuclear bombs in foreign cities is a dumb idea. What happens when Russia or China finds one? That is an act of war. It is also unnecessary since US, and Russia and China, have hundreds of ICBMs and SLBMs. Enough to survive any first strike and produce more retaliation than a few hidden bombs could. I could see people in early Cold War thinking it was a good idea, but they would worry about losing control of weapons. The one place could see hidden nukes is shipping containers. Not ship them around the world, but hold them for retaliation. Keep them in safe location away from targets and has access to untargeted port. Then send them out when shipping resumes after lose nuclear war. But that is very modern.
- _8j50 4y ago
  > The number and location of nuclear weapons is tightly held secret Location yeah, number no, due to treaties around proliferation and also hard to keep that secret with espionage and all. > It is also unnecessary since US, and Russia and China, have hundreds of ICBMs and SLBMs Delivery is the hardest part. Pre-staging is a huge advantage for first-strike to take out enemy leadership/infra and launch missiles so when they are launching their retaliation you are already one step ahead with your second wave. For retaliation, when someone launches nukes it is likely they have good defenses against your retaliation but probably not against your trojan nuke. That element of surprise is a huge advantage. > The one place could see hidden nukes is shipping containers. Not ship them around the world They do scan containers randomly, I assume this includes radiation and chemical traces.
  - ianburrell 4y ago
    First strike is a bad idea. In Russia and likely China, generals have ability to launch the nukes. They are on bases, in bunkers or middle of nowhere, and impossible to hit without missile. They will launch missiles once see that capital is destroyed. For US, we rely on President but there always Cabinet member that will survive. Also, all the nations have plenty of SLBMs to retaliate after first strike. Pre-deployed nuke might have made sense back when everybody used bombers and first strike was possible. If so, they would have needed multiple of them, more than could disappear. But it would have been even worse idea, leading to WW3. Plus, back then there was no arms control and need to hide bombs. For containers, I was not talking about deploying them but using them as retaliation. Could detonate them on the ship or launch short-range missiles from the ship.

by _8j50 4y ago

ianburrell 4y ago

Why would they have to fabricate in secret or use crashed bombs? The number and location of nuclear weapons is tightly held secret. There are so many that there is no way someone else could track them. Anyone in US would wonder where why bombs are at "storage facility". Also, putting nuclear bombs in foreign cities is a dumb idea. What happens when Russia or China finds one? That is an act of war. It is also unnecessary since US, and Russia and China, have hundreds of ICBMs and SLBMs. Enough to survive any first strike and produce more retaliation than a few hidden bombs could. I could see people in early Cold War thinking it was a good idea, but they would worry about losing control of weapons. The one place could see hidden nukes is shipping containers. Not ship them around the world, but hold them for retaliation. Keep them in safe location away from targets and has access to untargeted port. Then send them out when shipping resumes after lose nuclear war. But that is very modern.

_8j50 4y ago
> The number and location of nuclear weapons is tightly held secret Location yeah, number no, due to treaties around proliferation and also hard to keep that secret with espionage and all. > It is also unnecessary since US, and Russia and China, have hundreds of ICBMs and SLBMs Delivery is the hardest part. Pre-staging is a huge advantage for first-strike to take out enemy leadership/infra and launch missiles so when they are launching their retaliation you are already one step ahead with your second wave. For retaliation, when someone launches nukes it is likely they have good defenses against your retaliation but probably not against your trojan nuke. That element of surprise is a huge advantage. > The one place could see hidden nukes is shipping containers. Not ship them around the world They do scan containers randomly, I assume this includes radiation and chemical traces.
- ianburrell 4y ago
  First strike is a bad idea. In Russia and likely China, generals have ability to launch the nukes. They are on bases, in bunkers or middle of nowhere, and impossible to hit without missile. They will launch missiles once see that capital is destroyed. For US, we rely on President but there always Cabinet member that will survive. Also, all the nations have plenty of SLBMs to retaliate after first strike. Pre-deployed nuke might have made sense back when everybody used bombers and first strike was possible. If so, they would have needed multiple of them, more than could disappear. But it would have been even worse idea, leading to WW3. Plus, back then there was no arms control and need to hide bombs. For containers, I was not talking about deploying them but using them as retaliation. Could detonate them on the ship or launch short-range missiles from the ship.