4 ms·

Strategic aviation is the least important and most dual-purpose of any of the three branches of the nuclear triad, and by this point Ukraine has ample justifica

Strategic aviation is the least important and most dual-purpose of any of the three branches of the nuclear triad, and by this point Ukraine has ample justification for attacking it. It's an abstract concern in that sense. Destroying their entire strategic aviation forces would not meaningfully impact MAD.

mmooss 1y ago
> Destroying their entire strategic aviation forces would not meaningfully impact MAD. The only person I see saying that is some random Internet commenter. I've always heard the opposite from professionals in the field, especially that any threat to capability is a threat to stability.
- noduerme 1y ago
  Well, consider North Korea. With them there's no "mutual" in the assured destruction to their side if they launched a nuke. How is that less a deterrent?
  - mmooss 1y ago
    It's a good question and the answer is that the situation is unstable and dangerous. But I think you are approaching it backwards: With almost every country in the world, the US has first strike capability - the US could wipe out the country in hours or less, and only a few countries have a second strike capability to deter the US. That had long been true with NK, a very belligerent enemy. But in the last couple of decades NK added a small nuclear arsenal. It's not enough for a MAD relationship with the US, but they could threaten great harm to US allies South Korea and Japan - imagine nuking Seoul and Tokyo - and possibly land one on US territory. It wouldn't destroy the US, but losing San Francisco is a serious deterrent. Did the addition of NK's nuclear arsenal stabilize the situation by creating more deterrent, or destabilize it by emboldening NK? It's complex: One factor is that the US has sworn off use of nuclear weapons in conventional conflicts, even ones they are losing, and have strictly adhered to that policy, not even using small tactical nukes. The US has an even stronger motive - it establishes a global taboo against nuclear weapon use that nobody has violated yet. NK is very aware of it because US generals recommended using nuclear weapons in the Korean War and the president declined - that may seem like too close a call for NK, and don't assume that NK understands the US nearly as well as you do (if you are American); miscalculations like that are common on all sides in international relations. So now that NK has nuclear weapons, does that make a conventional conflict into a nuclear one, destabillizing the situation? What if the US believes they need to use nuclear weapons to prevent NK from using them on Seoul or San Franciso? On the other hand, NK's nukes may prevent a conventional war. NK saw what happened to Iraq - everyone did, and many realized that actual nuclear weapons were their only defense if the US was going to ignore international law and sovereignty and engage in 'regime change'.
- geoka9 1y ago
  I read somewhere that they still have their Tu-160s (at least). They have limited engine lifespan, so the Russians have been reluctant to use them for the terror sorties.
  - ethbr1 1y ago
    Wikipedia? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-160#Current_operators https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-160#Current_opera...
- ponector 1y ago
  As I've heard from professionals, Kyiv will not stand more than three days against Russia in a full scale military conflict. Strategic bombers make little sense, that's why everyone (even russians) are pushing for ballistic missiles instead. Strategic bombers used by Russia manly for terror with stockpile of soviet missiles.
  - nradov 1y ago
    Strategic bombers still make a lot of sense if you need to, let's say, hold Iranian nuclear facilities at risk with large conventional bunker buster bombs. This is the primary mission that B-2 squadrons train for, and just the existence of that capability provides a lot of negotiating leverage. Of course it's also enormously expensive.
    - roncesvalles 1y ago
      Bombers don't make sense because they are big, lumbering targets for SAM systems. The B-2 is an exception because it is stealth and flies very high.
      - slt2021 1y ago
        B-2 is not stealth, its just low visibility in radio to the ground based radars. It is very visible from the top, esp to aerial recon that use other signals in addition to radar signature
        mmooss 1y ago
        It is in fact stealth. Look up any information on it and it will tell you, it's a stealth bomber. Its primary capability is defeating enemy air defenses and holding their most valuable assets at risk.
    - ponector 1y ago
      B2 is much easier to intercept than ballistic missile. Also B2 has order of magnitude higher sticker price than ballistic missile. Good for bombing mujahedeen in the mountains and bad against someone with SAM. But for such bombing you don't need a strategic bomber, even frontline bomber could be enough.

mmooss 1y ago

> Destroying their entire strategic aviation forces would not meaningfully impact MAD. The only person I see saying that is some random Internet commenter. I've always heard the opposite from professionals in the field, especially that any threat to capability is a threat to stability.

noduerme 1y ago
Well, consider North Korea. With them there's no "mutual" in the assured destruction to their side if they launched a nuke. How is that less a deterrent?
- mmooss 1y ago
  It's a good question and the answer is that the situation is unstable and dangerous. But I think you are approaching it backwards: With almost every country in the world, the US has first strike capability - the US could wipe out the country in hours or less, and only a few countries have a second strike capability to deter the US. That had long been true with NK, a very belligerent enemy. But in the last couple of decades NK added a small nuclear arsenal. It's not enough for a MAD relationship with the US, but they could threaten great harm to US allies South Korea and Japan - imagine nuking Seoul and Tokyo - and possibly land one on US territory. It wouldn't destroy the US, but losing San Francisco is a serious deterrent. Did the addition of NK's nuclear arsenal stabilize the situation by creating more deterrent, or destabilize it by emboldening NK? It's complex: One factor is that the US has sworn off use of nuclear weapons in conventional conflicts, even ones they are losing, and have strictly adhered to that policy, not even using small tactical nukes. The US has an even stronger motive - it establishes a global taboo against nuclear weapon use that nobody has violated yet. NK is very aware of it because US generals recommended using nuclear weapons in the Korean War and the president declined - that may seem like too close a call for NK, and don't assume that NK understands the US nearly as well as you do (if you are American); miscalculations like that are common on all sides in international relations. So now that NK has nuclear weapons, does that make a conventional conflict into a nuclear one, destabillizing the situation? What if the US believes they need to use nuclear weapons to prevent NK from using them on Seoul or San Franciso? On the other hand, NK's nukes may prevent a conventional war. NK saw what happened to Iraq - everyone did, and many realized that actual nuclear weapons were their only defense if the US was going to ignore international law and sovereignty and engage in 'regime change'.
geoka9 1y ago
I read somewhere that they still have their Tu-160s (at least). They have limited engine lifespan, so the Russians have been reluctant to use them for the terror sorties.
- ethbr1 1y ago
  Wikipedia? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-160#Current_operators https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-160#Current_opera...
ponector 1y ago
As I've heard from professionals, Kyiv will not stand more than three days against Russia in a full scale military conflict. Strategic bombers make little sense, that's why everyone (even russians) are pushing for ballistic missiles instead. Strategic bombers used by Russia manly for terror with stockpile of soviet missiles.
- nradov 1y ago
  Strategic bombers still make a lot of sense if you need to, let's say, hold Iranian nuclear facilities at risk with large conventional bunker buster bombs. This is the primary mission that B-2 squadrons train for, and just the existence of that capability provides a lot of negotiating leverage. Of course it's also enormously expensive.
  - roncesvalles 1y ago
    Bombers don't make sense because they are big, lumbering targets for SAM systems. The B-2 is an exception because it is stealth and flies very high.
    - slt2021 1y ago
      B-2 is not stealth, its just low visibility in radio to the ground based radars. It is very visible from the top, esp to aerial recon that use other signals in addition to radar signature
      - mmooss 1y ago
        It is in fact stealth. Look up any information on it and it will tell you, it's a stealth bomber. Its primary capability is defeating enemy air defenses and holding their most valuable assets at risk.
  - ponector 1y ago
    B2 is much easier to intercept than ballistic missile. Also B2 has order of magnitude higher sticker price than ballistic missile. Good for bombing mujahedeen in the mountains and bad against someone with SAM. But for such bombing you don't need a strategic bomber, even frontline bomber could be enough.