2 ms·
> The rest of the nuclear deterrent for both the US and Russia is quite optional Do you have some basis for that? I've never heard it, I would be very surprise
by mmooss 1y ago
> The rest of the nuclear deterrent for both the US and Russia is quite optional
Do you have some basis for that? I've never heard it, I would be very surprised if either country allowed any part of their triad to be disabled, and both invest enormous resources in other parts of their triads.
- ethbr1 1y agoIt's woven through strategic thinking in the 50s and 60s -- a nuclear delivery triad ensures any adversary that's able to neutralize one leg will still be held under MAD and therefore unlikely to launch a first strike. Because technology was rapidly advancing, it was unclear whether any breakthrough (e.g. high altitude SAMs, etc.) might suddenly nullify one leg. If that were the only leg, the game theory response would be for the nullifier to immediately launch a first strike, to take advantage of their no-doubt temporary superiority.
- mmooss 1y agoThat is the basic concept for the triad, which isn't the question. The GGP said that for Russia strategic nuclear weapon bombers and subs are 'quite optional, and serves mostly political reasons.".
- ethbr1 1y agoAgreed. credit_guy doesn't understand what a multi-leg capability is for. Now as to whether Russia's other triad legs are credible MAD components on their own... numbers do matter. With their strategic airforce being degraded post-USSR without replacement and amidst recapitalization of the Deltas to Boreis, it's questionable is Russia can afford to maintain an effective three leg triad in the intermediate term. And if the other legs atrophy, there's also an incentive for the US and China to invest more in nullifying the remaining leg(s).