3 ms·

That’s a nice theory but nuking empty silo’s is pointless. So, attacking them just means they launch everything at you while also wasting your nukes.

by Retric 2y ago

StrauXX 2y ago
You don't know where the enemy ICBM warheads will land until it is too late. So you have to assume that they will target the silos
- Retric 2y ago
  The B part of ICBM means ballistic, and they are. Thus you can get a useful approximation of where it’s going to land based on the initial trajectory. By useful I mean you can do significantly better than saying if it’s targeting the middle of the US, east, or west coast. Though it’s quite a large area.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > you can get a useful approximation of where it’s going to land based on the initial trajectory If you’re doing a first strike and aren’t a moron, you conventionally strike the early-warning radars first. Ideally in a plausibly-deniable way.
    - Retric 2y ago
      First strike detection isn’t limited to early warning radar or ground based systems except in the very early days of the Cold War. There’s no plausibility deniable way to take these systems down in practice.
- absolutelastone 2y ago
  And they have to assume you will assume this, so they would expect your silos will already be emptied in a retaliatory strike. Of course you have to trust early-warning systems and the ability to react decisively and quickly.
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> nuking empty silo’s is pointless Nuking full siloes is the point of a first strike. So yes, you’re relatively safe near a silo field if America is launching first and the adversary assumes or knows that every silo launched perfectly.
- Retric 2y ago
  The fact first strike didn’t look like it would work has a lot to do with why we’ve avoid nuclear war. I’m not saying nobody would ever target a missile silo, just that they aren’t particularly high on this list of targets.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > they aren’t particularly high on this list of targets The target list is obviously conditional on a nuclear war happening. Unless your position is the U.S. is invulnerable to a first strike, then the silos should stay at the top of the list. (Even in a second strike you hit them and hit them fast. If there was a launch error you get a tremendous defensive ROI in taking them out.)
    - Retric 2y ago
      My position is first strikes vs US, Russia, or China are almost completely useless. Even France and the UK has 4 nuclear subs, the US has what 14 ballistic missile submarines?
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > My position is first strikes vs US, Russia, or China are almost completely useless That’s incoherent with this thread, which started with someone asking what would happen “if someone decides to nuke the US.” Not if France launched a suicidal first strike on America. The realistic scenarios for America getting nuked are a first strike from a rogue state, first strike from Russia or China, and second strike from Russia or China. First strike from a rogue state is basically nuclear terrorism; it will probably target a population centre or something close and hittable, e.g. Guam for Pyongyang. First strikes from Russia or China would target silos. (Unless theatre-based, e.g. hitting Guam and our Japanese airbases ahead of an invasion of Taiwan.) Second strike would mean silos are probably empty, though not necessarily, these are hundreds of decades-old mechanisms in who knows what condition of readiness, but sure, if the American first strike is comprehensive and flawless, and the enemy omnipotent, we’d probably not see too many nukes go at silos. (You would at other nuclear infrastructure.) So in general, no, if we’re in wide-scale nuclear war the planners who thought about this for decades in the Cold War may not have missed that launched tubes that have launched are now empty.

That’s a nice theory but nuking empty silo’s is pointless. So, attacking them just means they launch everything at you while also wasting your nukes.

by Retric 2y ago

That’s a nice theory but nuking empty silo’s is pointless. So, attacking them just means they launch everything at you while also wasting your nukes.

StrauXX 2y ago

You don't know where the enemy ICBM warheads will land until it is too late. So you have to assume that they will target the silos

Retric 2y ago
The B part of ICBM means ballistic, and they are. Thus you can get a useful approximation of where it’s going to land based on the initial trajectory. By useful I mean you can do significantly better than saying if it’s targeting the middle of the US, east, or west coast. Though it’s quite a large area.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > you can get a useful approximation of where it’s going to land based on the initial trajectory If you’re doing a first strike and aren’t a moron, you conventionally strike the early-warning radars first. Ideally in a plausibly-deniable way.
  - Retric 2y ago
    First strike detection isn’t limited to early warning radar or ground based systems except in the very early days of the Cold War. There’s no plausibility deniable way to take these systems down in practice.
absolutelastone 2y ago
And they have to assume you will assume this, so they would expect your silos will already be emptied in a retaliatory strike. Of course you have to trust early-warning systems and the ability to react decisively and quickly.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> nuking empty silo’s is pointless Nuking full siloes is the point of a first strike. So yes, you’re relatively safe near a silo field if America is launching first and the adversary assumes or knows that every silo launched perfectly.

Retric 2y ago
The fact first strike didn’t look like it would work has a lot to do with why we’ve avoid nuclear war. I’m not saying nobody would ever target a missile silo, just that they aren’t particularly high on this list of targets.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > they aren’t particularly high on this list of targets The target list is obviously conditional on a nuclear war happening. Unless your position is the U.S. is invulnerable to a first strike, then the silos should stay at the top of the list. (Even in a second strike you hit them and hit them fast. If there was a launch error you get a tremendous defensive ROI in taking them out.)
  - Retric 2y ago
    My position is first strikes vs US, Russia, or China are almost completely useless. Even France and the UK has 4 nuclear subs, the US has what 14 ballistic missile submarines?
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > My position is first strikes vs US, Russia, or China are almost completely useless That’s incoherent with this thread, which started with someone asking what would happen “if someone decides to nuke the US.” Not if France launched a suicidal first strike on America. The realistic scenarios for America getting nuked are a first strike from a rogue state, first strike from Russia or China, and second strike from Russia or China. First strike from a rogue state is basically nuclear terrorism; it will probably target a population centre or something close and hittable, e.g. Guam for Pyongyang. First strikes from Russia or China would target silos. (Unless theatre-based, e.g. hitting Guam and our Japanese airbases ahead of an invasion of Taiwan.) Second strike would mean silos are probably empty, though not necessarily, these are hundreds of decades-old mechanisms in who knows what condition of readiness, but sure, if the American first strike is comprehensive and flawless, and the enemy omnipotent, we’d probably not see too many nukes go at silos. (You would at other nuclear infrastructure.) So in general, no, if we’re in wide-scale nuclear war the planners who thought about this for decades in the Cold War may not have missed that launched tubes that have launched are now empty.