3 ms·

you also need submarines to have a "credible" second strike deterrent. It's not enough to just have a bomb.

Onavo 9mo ago
And launch vehicles.
ceejayoz 9mo ago
Submarines are one of several options for this. Rockets, submarines, aircraft, or even a nuke in a container ship parked in a big harbor work.
- tshaddox 9mo ago
  Or missile systems constantly moved around on roads, railroads, or underground tunnels. And there’s also “launch on warning.”
- ortusdux 9mo ago
  China's recent container ship weaponization efforts are .. interesting - https://www.twz.com/sea/chinese-cargo-ship-packed-full-of-modular-missile-launchers-emerges https://www.twz.com/sea/chinese-cargo-ship-packed-full-of-mo... Reminds me of the Rapid Dragon missile system the US uses to weaponize cargo planes - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_Dragon_(missile_system) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_Dragon_(missile_system)
  - ceejayoz 9mo ago
    Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poseidon_(unmanned_underwater_vehicle) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poseidon_(unmanned_underwater_... I'd fully expect China and the US to be working on such things.
- deleted 9mo ago
  [deleted]
- bob1029 9mo ago
  Delivery of nuclear weapon via shipping container might seem like a deterrent but it's kind of the opposite thing. For something to be a deterrent it must have a few properties. Delivery taking a non-zero amount of time and producing a gigantic visible ordeal from outer space is a feature here. A container bomb going off somewhere in a civilian logistics chain is a surprise. Surprises cannot be deterrent by their very definition. The inability to ~instantly attribute the attack to some party would only invite additional instability.
  - ceejayoz 9mo ago
    The deterrence aspect is having nukes your adversary can't be certain of getting rid of on a preemptive strike. You don't have to have them on a container ship. You need the credible threat of being able to do so.
    - bob1029 9mo ago
      Container ships tend to be fairly slow to respond and may not function as expected during a nuclear war. The only way for this to work as a retaliatory measure is to have the weapons already in place at the target locations. Now, imagine if someone were to discover the weapon and trace it back to whomever installed it. This is effectively a slow motion nuclear exchange that was initiated by the "defender".
      - ceejayoz 9mo ago
        The point of this particular sort of deterrence is to prevent a decapitation strike by an opponent who thinks they can knock them all out. "Yeah, you can drop bunker busters on the silos you know about, but six months later one of your cities evaporates." The five big nuclear powers use subs for this, but it's hardly the only option.
        mrguyorama 9mo ago
        A key feature of those subs is that it won't be six months later. It will be an hour later because one is already stationed just outside your waters. It's also a bit more sneaky than a damn merchant vessel. You really think you're getting secrecy of a nuke existing on a merchant vessel? Why? You have given the enemy intelligence agency nothing more than an entry level homework assignment. That vessel is 99/100 getting intercepted or sunk. How many of your merchant vessels are otherwise sailing towards the country that just armegeddon'd you?
- fragmede 9mo ago
  Or just a big enough nuke in the frozen northern tundra, one large enough to cause nuclear winter for the whole world.
ForHackernews 9mo ago
Sweden already has good submarines https://www.19fortyfive.com/2025/05/cheap-100000000-submarine-sank-4500000000-us-navy-aircraft-carrier-multiple-times/ https://www.19fortyfive.com/2025/05/cheap-100000000-submarin...
- marginalia_nu 9mo ago
  Also used to run a nuclear weapons program back in the day[1]. Though, to be honest, I think it'd be politically impossible to revive today. There's barely political will to build new nuclear power. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_nuclear_weapons_program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_nuclear_weapons_progra...
  - hsuduebc2 9mo ago
    I do not think that nuclear power is viewed same as nuclear war heads. One is perceived as potentional ecological catasprophe and the second one as a weapon of retaliation.
    - marginalia_nu 9mo ago
      I honestly don't think most people understand either. Younger generations are a bit more open minded, but for a lot of people who lived through the news reports of Cs137-fallout from Chernobyl raining down on them, nuclear anything is represents an invisible and scary boogyman.
      - hsuduebc2 9mo ago
        I like this explanation why people in old soviet block tent much more to support nuclear energy. When Chernobyl accident happened, communists we're mainly silent about that but countries which we're affected and had a free press were (rightfully) panicking so general population became scared about the use of nuclear as a energy source.
TomatoCo 9mo ago
Or a fleet of TELs roaming the uninhabited regions.

Onavo 9mo ago

And launch vehicles.

Submarines are one of several options for this. Rockets, submarines, aircraft, or even a nuke in a container ship parked in a big harbor work.

tshaddox 9mo ago
Or missile systems constantly moved around on roads, railroads, or underground tunnels. And there’s also “launch on warning.”
ortusdux 9mo ago
China's recent container ship weaponization efforts are .. interesting - https://www.twz.com/sea/chinese-cargo-ship-packed-full-of-modular-missile-launchers-emerges https://www.twz.com/sea/chinese-cargo-ship-packed-full-of-mo... Reminds me of the Rapid Dragon missile system the US uses to weaponize cargo planes - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_Dragon_(missile_system) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_Dragon_(missile_system)
- ceejayoz 9mo ago
  Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poseidon_(unmanned_underwater_vehicle) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poseidon_(unmanned_underwater_... I'd fully expect China and the US to be working on such things.
deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]
bob1029 9mo ago
Delivery of nuclear weapon via shipping container might seem like a deterrent but it's kind of the opposite thing. For something to be a deterrent it must have a few properties. Delivery taking a non-zero amount of time and producing a gigantic visible ordeal from outer space is a feature here. A container bomb going off somewhere in a civilian logistics chain is a surprise. Surprises cannot be deterrent by their very definition. The inability to ~instantly attribute the attack to some party would only invite additional instability.
- ceejayoz 9mo ago
  The deterrence aspect is having nukes your adversary can't be certain of getting rid of on a preemptive strike. You don't have to have them on a container ship. You need the credible threat of being able to do so.
  - bob1029 9mo ago
    Container ships tend to be fairly slow to respond and may not function as expected during a nuclear war. The only way for this to work as a retaliatory measure is to have the weapons already in place at the target locations. Now, imagine if someone were to discover the weapon and trace it back to whomever installed it. This is effectively a slow motion nuclear exchange that was initiated by the "defender".
    - ceejayoz 9mo ago
      The point of this particular sort of deterrence is to prevent a decapitation strike by an opponent who thinks they can knock them all out. "Yeah, you can drop bunker busters on the silos you know about, but six months later one of your cities evaporates." The five big nuclear powers use subs for this, but it's hardly the only option.
      - mrguyorama 9mo ago
        A key feature of those subs is that it won't be six months later. It will be an hour later because one is already stationed just outside your waters. It's also a bit more sneaky than a damn merchant vessel. You really think you're getting secrecy of a nuke existing on a merchant vessel? Why? You have given the enemy intelligence agency nothing more than an entry level homework assignment. That vessel is 99/100 getting intercepted or sunk. How many of your merchant vessels are otherwise sailing towards the country that just armegeddon'd you?
fragmede 9mo ago
Or just a big enough nuke in the frozen northern tundra, one large enough to cause nuclear winter for the whole world.

ForHackernews 9mo ago

Sweden already has good submarines https://www.19fortyfive.com/2025/05/cheap-100000000-submarine-sank-4500000000-us-navy-aircraft-carrier-multiple-times/ https://www.19fortyfive.com/2025/05/cheap-100000000-submarin...

marginalia_nu 9mo ago
Also used to run a nuclear weapons program back in the day[1]. Though, to be honest, I think it'd be politically impossible to revive today. There's barely political will to build new nuclear power. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_nuclear_weapons_program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_nuclear_weapons_progra...
- hsuduebc2 9mo ago
  I do not think that nuclear power is viewed same as nuclear war heads. One is perceived as potentional ecological catasprophe and the second one as a weapon of retaliation.
  - marginalia_nu 9mo ago
    I honestly don't think most people understand either. Younger generations are a bit more open minded, but for a lot of people who lived through the news reports of Cs137-fallout from Chernobyl raining down on them, nuclear anything is represents an invisible and scary boogyman.
    - hsuduebc2 9mo ago
      I like this explanation why people in old soviet block tent much more to support nuclear energy. When Chernobyl accident happened, communists we're mainly silent about that but countries which we're affected and had a free press were (rightfully) panicking so general population became scared about the use of nuclear as a energy source.

TomatoCo 9mo ago

Or a fleet of TELs roaming the uninhabited regions.