5 ms·

It seems insane to me that anyone ever thought that was a good idea.

jgeada 2y ago
It was a very profitable idea, either in actual $$$ or in access to power, for some. That is all that usually matters around here.
XorNot 2y ago
Airbases are in well known fixed locations. If your nuclear bomber fleet, and it's armaments, are all on the ground then it is entirely plausible that a sneak attack could decapitate the entire force. If that's your only nuclear force, then you have suddenly and immediately lost the war, lest the successful enemy then proceed to simply bomb your cities with impunity. The whole problem with nuclear weapons was you only needed a handful to annihilate the entire opposing force.
- red_admiral 2y ago
  And the six-day war showed that destroying someone's air force on the ground can actually be done - twice, I think (Egypt and Syria). Mind you, the US is big, and even ICBMs would take enough time, presumably even if they're fired from a sub just off the coast, that you could get some of your bombers and silo missiles airborne. Submarines are an extra layer of insurance on top of that. The UK is not that big, so their backup is a letter from the prime minister in a safe inside the submarine, with instructions what to do if they find the UK has been destroyed.
  - jajko 2y ago
    Technically three times now, Israel in past few days wiped out any air force or air defenses in Syria. They moved the country basically to the level of say Afghanistan re air defenses, so they can do whatever they want. So can others. Till current jihadists will agree with russians to have some pantsirs and S-300/400 on the ground for keeping their bases there and situation changes again. If russians can get friendly with Taliban they can be friends with anybody so thats just question of time.
    - thaGf 2y ago
      Ugh, the U.S. supported the Taliban during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The current Syrian rebels, despite being partly a rebranding of Al-Quaeda, are supported by the U.S., which will recognize the new government under certain conditions: https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-says-will-recognize-new-syrian-regime-if-it-renounces-terror-supports-women/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-says-will-recognize-new-syr... The regime change in Syria has been one of the primary U.S. foreign policy goals for decades. Of course, the Jihadists may turn on a dime and indeed cooperate with Russia in the future.
      - aguaviva 2y ago
        Ugh, the U.S. supported the Taliban during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The Taliban did not exist during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. If you can't get that right, after all these years -- how can you hope to make heads or tails out of whatever word salad you've been ingesting in regard to Syria?
        LargoLasskhyfv 2y ago
        Their precursors did. Where do you think they came from, and even more so who made that happen?
        aguaviva 2y ago
        That's not how it works. Whatever you think is "really" happening in Syria -- you'll need to point to actual evidence in the current moment. Otherwise, it's just speculation.
        LargoLasskhyfv 2y ago
        I've been referring specifically to > Ugh, the U.S. supported the Taliban during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. by ThaGf. That is not speculation at all. But one can extrapolate from that point onwards, following a certain behavourial pattern of one specific party. Or maybe just reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art,_Truth_and_Politics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art,_Truth_and_Politics https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/literature/2005/pinter/lecture/ which traces these patterns mostly trough South America, but there is some Iraq in there, too. Anything else? Do ya wanna have some freedom fries with that?
- jdougan 2y ago
  Which is why they tested air-launching a minuteman I back in '74. Tough to hit a C-5 in the air over the US with an ICBM. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xr2_cKfr8Sk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xr2_cKfr8Sk
denkmoon 2y ago
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Curtis LeMay was far from insane, to write off the thoughts of those who influenced early nuclear doctrine as insane doesn't do the topic justice. The book Command & Control is a great read on nuclear doctrine.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

It was a very profitable idea, either in actual $$$ or in access to power, for some. That is all that usually matters around here.

XorNot 2y ago

Airbases are in well known fixed locations. If your nuclear bomber fleet, and it's armaments, are all on the ground then it is entirely plausible that a sneak attack could decapitate the entire force. If that's your only nuclear force, then you have suddenly and immediately lost the war, lest the successful enemy then proceed to simply bomb your cities with impunity. The whole problem with nuclear weapons was you only needed a handful to annihilate the entire opposing force.

red_admiral 2y ago
And the six-day war showed that destroying someone's air force on the ground can actually be done - twice, I think (Egypt and Syria). Mind you, the US is big, and even ICBMs would take enough time, presumably even if they're fired from a sub just off the coast, that you could get some of your bombers and silo missiles airborne. Submarines are an extra layer of insurance on top of that. The UK is not that big, so their backup is a letter from the prime minister in a safe inside the submarine, with instructions what to do if they find the UK has been destroyed.
- jajko 2y ago
  Technically three times now, Israel in past few days wiped out any air force or air defenses in Syria. They moved the country basically to the level of say Afghanistan re air defenses, so they can do whatever they want. So can others. Till current jihadists will agree with russians to have some pantsirs and S-300/400 on the ground for keeping their bases there and situation changes again. If russians can get friendly with Taliban they can be friends with anybody so thats just question of time.
  - thaGf 2y ago
    Ugh, the U.S. supported the Taliban during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The current Syrian rebels, despite being partly a rebranding of Al-Quaeda, are supported by the U.S., which will recognize the new government under certain conditions: https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-says-will-recognize-new-syrian-regime-if-it-renounces-terror-supports-women/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-says-will-recognize-new-syr... The regime change in Syria has been one of the primary U.S. foreign policy goals for decades. Of course, the Jihadists may turn on a dime and indeed cooperate with Russia in the future.
    - aguaviva 2y ago
      Ugh, the U.S. supported the Taliban during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The Taliban did not exist during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. If you can't get that right, after all these years -- how can you hope to make heads or tails out of whatever word salad you've been ingesting in regard to Syria?
      - LargoLasskhyfv 2y ago
        Their precursors did. Where do you think they came from, and even more so who made that happen?
        aguaviva 2y ago
        That's not how it works. Whatever you think is "really" happening in Syria -- you'll need to point to actual evidence in the current moment. Otherwise, it's just speculation.
        LargoLasskhyfv 2y ago
        I've been referring specifically to > Ugh, the U.S. supported the Taliban during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. by ThaGf. That is not speculation at all. But one can extrapolate from that point onwards, following a certain behavourial pattern of one specific party. Or maybe just reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art,_Truth_and_Politics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art,_Truth_and_Politics https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/literature/2005/pinter/lecture/ which traces these patterns mostly trough South America, but there is some Iraq in there, too. Anything else? Do ya wanna have some freedom fries with that?
jdougan 2y ago
Which is why they tested air-launching a minuteman I back in '74. Tough to hit a C-5 in the air over the US with an ICBM. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xr2_cKfr8Sk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xr2_cKfr8Sk

denkmoon 2y ago

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Curtis LeMay was far from insane, to write off the thoughts of those who influenced early nuclear doctrine as insane doesn't do the topic justice. The book Command & Control is a great read on nuclear doctrine.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]