3 ms·

I mean you're largely correct. What I'm saying is that there may be a standing order to destroy all ballistic threats, and to exercise a very high degree of cau

I mean you're largely correct. What I'm saying is that there may be a standing order to destroy all ballistic threats, and to exercise a very high degree of caution (high level approvals for each engagement) with any potential air breathing / subsonic threats. I imagine this is a common order given to Patriot batteries in hot, but not war, areas. BTW, this is a bit similar to why the US very clearly advertises the Tomahawk as not nuclear capable - so that a few subsonic blips do not trigger a strategic exchange. The Russians do not do that, many of their commonly used missiles are dual purpose.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
perihelions 2y ago
The Tomahawk was deployed with nuclear warheads, in several variants, between 1983–2010 or 2013 [0]. As far as I can tell, only the ground-launched variants were consistently advertised as non-nuclear, and that was to comply with the bilateral treaty obligations of the INF [1]—and there was a ground-launched nuclear Tomahawk, too [2], which was destroyed in 1991 when the INF treaty came into effect. I don't think that there was ever a *unilateral* US aversion to these things. We've fielded large numbers [3] of nuclear-warhead cruise missiles—air-, sea-, and ground-launched, spanning much of the Cold war. We're currently developing a new one right now [4]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_(missile_family)#Variants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_(missile_family)#Vari... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate-Range_Nuclear_Forces_Treaty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate-Range_Nuclear_For... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BGM-109G_Gryphon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BGM-109G_Gryphon [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Nuclear_cruise_missiles_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Nuclear_cruise_missil... ("Category: Nuclear cruise missiles of the United States") [4] https://news.usni.org/2024/06/06/report-to-congress-to-on-nuclear-armed-sea-launched-cruise-missile https://news.usni.org/2024/06/06/report-to-congress-to-on-nu... ("Report to Congress on Nuclear-Armed Sea-Launched Cruise Missile")
- H8crilA 2y ago
  Ugh, I was clearly wrong about the Tomahawk, and I don't know why I thought so. It's probably not a believable story for the adversary, so such self-inhibition cannot yield any strategic results anyways.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

perihelions 2y ago

The Tomahawk was deployed with nuclear warheads, in several variants, between 1983–2010 or 2013 [0]. As far as I can tell, only the ground-launched variants were consistently advertised as non-nuclear, and that was to comply with the bilateral treaty obligations of the INF [1]—and there was a ground-launched nuclear Tomahawk, too [2], which was destroyed in 1991 when the INF treaty came into effect. I don't think that there was ever a *unilateral* US aversion to these things. We've fielded large numbers [3] of nuclear-warhead cruise missiles—air-, sea-, and ground-launched, spanning much of the Cold war. We're currently developing a new one right now [4]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_(missile_family)#Variants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_(missile_family)#Vari... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate-Range_Nuclear_Forces_Treaty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate-Range_Nuclear_For... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BGM-109G_Gryphon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BGM-109G_Gryphon [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Nuclear_cruise_missiles_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Nuclear_cruise_missil... ("Category: Nuclear cruise missiles of the United States") [4] https://news.usni.org/2024/06/06/report-to-congress-to-on-nuclear-armed-sea-launched-cruise-missile https://news.usni.org/2024/06/06/report-to-congress-to-on-nu... ("Report to Congress on Nuclear-Armed Sea-Launched Cruise Missile")

H8crilA 2y ago
Ugh, I was clearly wrong about the Tomahawk, and I don't know why I thought so. It's probably not a believable story for the adversary, so such self-inhibition cannot yield any strategic results anyways.