4 ms·

> I'm of the opinion that things like shipbuilding don't really matter in times of war for countries with nuclear weapons. There would be dire consequences for

> I'm of the opinion that things like shipbuilding don't really matter in times of war for countries with nuclear weapons. There would be dire consequences for anyone invading and/or blockading a nuclear armed country. The flaw in that annoyingly common logic is 1) countries are very reluctant to use nuclear weapons, and 2) any kind of nuclear escalation is an instant loss for your own side. I personally don't think any country would resort to nuclear weapons in the case of an invasion or blockade, and certainly not a democratic one [1]. They may threaten, but I don't think they'd actually put that gun to their own head and pull the trigger. [1] An autocratic one may use them when the leader is close to defeat as one last "f*ck you", because he doesn't serve his people, they serve him.

rhubarbtree 1y ago
We may add to that - the UK’s nuclear deterrent is onboard submarines.
- jack_tripper 1y ago
  That's also my thinking that nullifies a lot of the discussion here. Like why would anyone start a naval beef with the UK, given the UK's nuclear submarine fleet?
  - XorNot 1y ago
    It's not about starting a direct conflict, it's that blockading it can be done at a distance rather easily. If ships can't get to the UK, or the foreign shipyards reduced to rubble - or outbid - then it's more effective and cost efficient then any direct kinetic action.
    - jack_tripper 1y ago
      Submarine fleets will torpedo your blockade. No need to fire nukes.
      - gpderetta 1y ago
        My understanding is that the UK currently has 5 attack submarines. Is that enough to break a blockade? More are planned (the SSN-AUKUS), but it is probably still some time away.
        jack_tripper 1y ago
        That's around 100 torpedoes loaded in the water. Is that enough to break a blockade?
        nradov 1y ago
        No, it's not nearly enough. The exact number of weapons onboard is largely irrelevant. At any given time only about one third of a nation's attack submarines can be out on active patrol while the others are in transit, undergoing maintenance, or working up. During a crisis they can maybe surge two thirds of the force for a few months but that isn't sustainable. Each submarine can only be in one place at a time and they're likely to take some losses against a competent adversary.
        jack_tripper 1y ago
        That's why my money(figuratively) is on Kraken Roboticss and Anduril's autonomous robot submarines. This will be the future of naval warfare.
        nradov 1y ago
        That's so naive. Those robot submarines will be useful for local defense but they lack the range, speed, and staying power to project power and protect sea lines of communication over thousands of miles on a sustained basis. The notion of doing that with robots remains firmly in the realm of science fiction today. Maybe in 30 years.
      - XorNot 1y ago
        And my point is it's not about a physical blockade. If you buy your ships from half way around the world, then the shipyards can be destroyed before you get anywhere near them. And certainly now preventing that is politically commiting to a war on the other side of the planet which may not immediately effect you, but is likely to eventually. But the other part is: you don't have to physically do anything. You could deny shipping to your opponent by someone just outbidding you for the output. Why not? You're already outsourcing so you're cost sensitive, and guaranteed volume is cat nip to manufacturers - no amount of strategic alliance wording is going to save you if an adversary reliably buys 10x as much.
  - rusk 1y ago
    Nukes are useless as anything other than a self destruct mechanism. A gunman pointing at your head with himself in the line of fire.
    - jack_tripper 1y ago
      Nuclear submarines as in nuclear propulsion submarines. And nukes are useful because you never need to fire them.
      - rusk 1y ago
        That’s the point, and you’re in big trouble if that’s what you’re actually dependent upon is something you can’t use. Nukes are only for the other nukes. The bit of butter, so they say, Betty bought to make the bitter butter better.
    - throwaway290 1y ago
      Tell that to Ukraine! Edit: it's not about throwing nukes at each other... It's about having nukes that you can use if someone invades you.
      - rusk 1y ago
        Russia aren’t going to use nukes on their own doorstep. That’s a a NATO problem. It’s like openly knifing somebody in public repeatedly while holding the would be hero’s at bay with a gun. Yes this is an actual thing that happened in the UK about 10 years ago.
        scott_w 1y ago
        Um... Russia's doctrine during the Cold War was to turn Poland into a nuclear wasteland to stop Nato advancing through it. At the time, Poland was a part of the USSR. What Russia considers "a buffer zone" is really "inferior peoples we can atomise without having to open a new conflict with a foreign power." To be clear, I use the term "inferior peoples" as seen from the Russian point of view.
- HPsquared 1y ago
  It's a lot of reliance placed on one rather complex system. See "Trident Missile Test Fails for Second Time in a Row" (Feb 2024) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68355395 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68355395
  - greedo 1y ago
    Of all the current nuclear weapons delivery systems, Trident is probably the most reliable. Minuteman might be up there due to being a very very mature system, but I would take Trident in a heart beat. https://www.iiss.org/online-analysis/online-analysis/2024/03/the-uks-trident-launch-failure-a-cause-for-concern/#:~:text=Statistics%20matter,a%20failure%20rate%20of%202.6%25. https://www.iiss.org/online-analysis/online-analysis/2024/03...
generic92034 1y ago
> because he doesn't serve his people, they serve him. I am not convinced the current breed of politicians in (more or less) democratic countries sees that differently.
- varjag 1y ago
  Right, it's sometimes hard to see the difference with democracy and authoritarianism if you never experienced the latter.
  - generic92034 1y ago
    Oh, please do not assume I would not be able to see differences between democracy and authoritarianism. I only said I doubt that there are big differences between some of the views of the respective leaders regarding the populace.
DecoySalamander 1y ago
> An autocratic one may use them when the leader is close to defeat as one last "f*ck you" I don't think that could realistically work. The suicidal leader would need buy-in not only from the military command, but also from the numerous operators responsible for preparing and conducting the launches. Everyone involved would be presented wiath a choice between signing death sentenses for themselves and their loved ones or trying their luck with whatever enemy they were facing.
vintermann 1y ago
> An autocratic one may use them when the leader is close to defeat as one last "f*ck you", because he doesn't serve his people, they serve him. Too bad it's hard to find a country which isn't autocratic by this standard in practice.
- mrguyorama 1y ago
  Even Putin did not fire nukes when Ukraine launched a fairly successful invasion of their soil. US did not fire nukes during Korea or Vietnam despite several high up people wanting to repeatedly. USSR did not fire nukes the several times they thought the US had launched. USSR did not fire the nukes during the Cuban Missile Crisis even though Fidel was adamant that they be allowed to sacrifice themselves to destroy the US. Somehow, that generation was able to maintain a sober view of nuclear weapons. Even as Nixon himself drunkenly insisted we nuke most of the world, he was ignored. As that generation has aged out, it seems like that respect may be going away. Trump wants to start detonating nukes again. There may be a genuine reason, like maybe we have lost confidence in our simulations and models to build new nukes and desperately need to build the next generation of deterrence, but maybe he's just a dumbass. China is going back to building a shitload of nukes, even though they had plenty. Geopolitical conflict is back on the menu the world over, and everyone is itching to claim some century old grievance to go beat up a neighbor. The Ukraine invasion and muffled response proves to everyone that if you don't have nukes, you are not going to be protected, while North Korea proves that if you do have nukes, you can do almost anything you want. I think a nuke will be used this century in anger. I think the world will be too gunshy to respond adequately, or too split along some axis, and there will be geopolitical bickering about who is the bad guy for using N+1 nukes in a conflict. We will have some great new video footage though.

rhubarbtree 1y ago

We may add to that - the UK’s nuclear deterrent is onboard submarines.

jack_tripper 1y ago
That's also my thinking that nullifies a lot of the discussion here. Like why would anyone start a naval beef with the UK, given the UK's nuclear submarine fleet?
- XorNot 1y ago
  It's not about starting a direct conflict, it's that blockading it can be done at a distance rather easily. If ships can't get to the UK, or the foreign shipyards reduced to rubble - or outbid - then it's more effective and cost efficient then any direct kinetic action.
  - jack_tripper 1y ago
    Submarine fleets will torpedo your blockade. No need to fire nukes.
    - gpderetta 1y ago
      My understanding is that the UK currently has 5 attack submarines. Is that enough to break a blockade? More are planned (the SSN-AUKUS), but it is probably still some time away.
      - jack_tripper 1y ago
        That's around 100 torpedoes loaded in the water. Is that enough to break a blockade?
        nradov 1y ago
        No, it's not nearly enough. The exact number of weapons onboard is largely irrelevant. At any given time only about one third of a nation's attack submarines can be out on active patrol while the others are in transit, undergoing maintenance, or working up. During a crisis they can maybe surge two thirds of the force for a few months but that isn't sustainable. Each submarine can only be in one place at a time and they're likely to take some losses against a competent adversary.
        jack_tripper 1y ago
        That's why my money(figuratively) is on Kraken Roboticss and Anduril's autonomous robot submarines. This will be the future of naval warfare.
        nradov 1y ago
        That's so naive. Those robot submarines will be useful for local defense but they lack the range, speed, and staying power to project power and protect sea lines of communication over thousands of miles on a sustained basis. The notion of doing that with robots remains firmly in the realm of science fiction today. Maybe in 30 years.
    - XorNot 1y ago
      And my point is it's not about a physical blockade. If you buy your ships from half way around the world, then the shipyards can be destroyed before you get anywhere near them. And certainly now preventing that is politically commiting to a war on the other side of the planet which may not immediately effect you, but is likely to eventually. But the other part is: you don't have to physically do anything. You could deny shipping to your opponent by someone just outbidding you for the output. Why not? You're already outsourcing so you're cost sensitive, and guaranteed volume is cat nip to manufacturers - no amount of strategic alliance wording is going to save you if an adversary reliably buys 10x as much.
- rusk 1y ago
  Nukes are useless as anything other than a self destruct mechanism. A gunman pointing at your head with himself in the line of fire.
  - jack_tripper 1y ago
    Nuclear submarines as in nuclear propulsion submarines. And nukes are useful because you never need to fire them.
    - rusk 1y ago
      That’s the point, and you’re in big trouble if that’s what you’re actually dependent upon is something you can’t use. Nukes are only for the other nukes. The bit of butter, so they say, Betty bought to make the bitter butter better.
  - throwaway290 1y ago
    Tell that to Ukraine! Edit: it's not about throwing nukes at each other... It's about having nukes that you can use if someone invades you.
    - rusk 1y ago
      Russia aren’t going to use nukes on their own doorstep. That’s a a NATO problem. It’s like openly knifing somebody in public repeatedly while holding the would be hero’s at bay with a gun. Yes this is an actual thing that happened in the UK about 10 years ago.
      - scott_w 1y ago
        Um... Russia's doctrine during the Cold War was to turn Poland into a nuclear wasteland to stop Nato advancing through it. At the time, Poland was a part of the USSR. What Russia considers "a buffer zone" is really "inferior peoples we can atomise without having to open a new conflict with a foreign power." To be clear, I use the term "inferior peoples" as seen from the Russian point of view.
HPsquared 1y ago
It's a lot of reliance placed on one rather complex system. See "Trident Missile Test Fails for Second Time in a Row" (Feb 2024) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68355395 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68355395
- greedo 1y ago
  Of all the current nuclear weapons delivery systems, Trident is probably the most reliable. Minuteman might be up there due to being a very very mature system, but I would take Trident in a heart beat. https://www.iiss.org/online-analysis/online-analysis/2024/03/the-uks-trident-launch-failure-a-cause-for-concern/#:~:text=Statistics%20matter,a%20failure%20rate%20of%202.6%25. https://www.iiss.org/online-analysis/online-analysis/2024/03...

generic92034 1y ago

> because he doesn't serve his people, they serve him. I am not convinced the current breed of politicians in (more or less) democratic countries sees that differently.

varjag 1y ago
Right, it's sometimes hard to see the difference with democracy and authoritarianism if you never experienced the latter.
- generic92034 1y ago
  Oh, please do not assume I would not be able to see differences between democracy and authoritarianism. I only said I doubt that there are big differences between some of the views of the respective leaders regarding the populace.

DecoySalamander 1y ago

> An autocratic one may use them when the leader is close to defeat as one last "f*ck you" I don't think that could realistically work. The suicidal leader would need buy-in not only from the military command, but also from the numerous operators responsible for preparing and conducting the launches. Everyone involved would be presented wiath a choice between signing death sentenses for themselves and their loved ones or trying their luck with whatever enemy they were facing.

vintermann 1y ago

> An autocratic one may use them when the leader is close to defeat as one last "f*ck you", because he doesn't serve his people, they serve him. Too bad it's hard to find a country which isn't autocratic by this standard in practice.

mrguyorama 1y ago
Even Putin did not fire nukes when Ukraine launched a fairly successful invasion of their soil. US did not fire nukes during Korea or Vietnam despite several high up people wanting to repeatedly. USSR did not fire nukes the several times they thought the US had launched. USSR did not fire the nukes during the Cuban Missile Crisis even though Fidel was adamant that they be allowed to sacrifice themselves to destroy the US. Somehow, that generation was able to maintain a sober view of nuclear weapons. Even as Nixon himself drunkenly insisted we nuke most of the world, he was ignored. As that generation has aged out, it seems like that respect may be going away. Trump wants to start detonating nukes again. There may be a genuine reason, like maybe we have lost confidence in our simulations and models to build new nukes and desperately need to build the next generation of deterrence, but maybe he's just a dumbass. China is going back to building a shitload of nukes, even though they had plenty. Geopolitical conflict is back on the menu the world over, and everyone is itching to claim some century old grievance to go beat up a neighbor. The Ukraine invasion and muffled response proves to everyone that if you don't have nukes, you are not going to be protected, while North Korea proves that if you do have nukes, you can do almost anything you want. I think a nuke will be used this century in anger. I think the world will be too gunshy to respond adequately, or too split along some axis, and there will be geopolitical bickering about who is the bad guy for using N+1 nukes in a conflict. We will have some great new video footage though.