5 ms·

We already know the answer. There were several close calls during the Cold War, and while the powers involved always chose to respond (they had to, it was doct

by Dove 13y ago

We already know the answer. There were several close calls during the Cold War, and while the powers involved always chose to respond (they had to, it was doctrine at the time), they always chose to respond cautiously. Both sides wanted to avoid a "hot" war at almost any cost. For an example of how bad things could get with both sides still responding cautiously, read about Able Archer[1]. A first strike in the cold war was expected to be all out -- many, many missiles at once in an attempt to disable the enemy before he could respond. One explosion, in the middle of nowhere, is not a sensible first strike. I'd think "accident" would be the top hypothesis, even if "What are we dealing with?" was definitely a burning question. There were plenty of times when a much more credible first strike came up. Computer glitches that made it look like dozens of missiles were already in the air. Large exercises that looked legitimately like immediate attacks. Those were scary crises, but they were navigated with caution and skill. A lone explosion in the middle of nowhere wouldn't even rate as a close call, I don't think. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Archer_83 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Archer_83

mtdewcmu 13y ago
Good point. The military should know where their own planes are, too.
- lostlogin 13y ago
  Maybe. Their record for knowing where stuff is isn't that good. The Iraq adventure lost $1billion of stuff. This shouldn't be confused with the overall cost (some would also say loss here) of a few trillion dollars for the whole episode. http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500257_162-3584247.html http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500257_162-3584247.html
  - twoodfin 13y ago
    Iraq war estimates in the trillions involve some pretty iffy calculations of long-term effects, like guessing the impact on the price of oil. The actually budgetary cost was much lower.
    - lostlogin 13y ago
      Agreed. And as soon as your reaching any figure anywhere near that high, any source of error is going to make a large difference. I'm sure everyone agrees that the cost V benefit ratio wasn't that good though.
      - mtdewcmu 13y ago
        Yes, but they said Saddam was a Hitler. A cheap, shabbier version, sort of like Hitler's wayward alcoholic brother. And minus the million-man German army, etc.
  - mtdewcmu 13y ago
    Well, losing hardware is not quite the same as losing track of flying planes with nuclear bombs on board. When the plane went down, you would sure hope that they knew to send help.
    - lostlogin 13y ago
      There have been a few bombs lost overtime according the the Wikipedia page, usually as the result of plane mechanical issues.
  - ballard 13y ago
    Funny you should mention this. So my mom was a civil-service accountant/programmer for the armed services at NAS Moffett Field in the 1970's. She recounted story after story of conspicous waste, especially related to expensive aircraft parts (lost/stolen/missing). Also, a guy I know became very unpopular (career ending) with COs for objecting to needlessly chewing up $1 mil helicopter turbines. So it seems par for the course.
NegativeK 13y ago
> A first strike in the cold war was expected to be all out Not universally. The potential for a limited exchange wasn't completely discounted -- the US or the USSR could detonate a single explosive in a side conflict or in the mainlands to signal that they're no longer posturing and are willing to deal with the diplomatic consequences of a single detonation. Similarly, submarines and SLBMs (with MIRVs, no less,) guaranteed MAD even in the face of a full first strike; responding to a single explosion with a single retaliation (and a diplomatic message of "you knew this was going to be the response; don't escalate") was a lot less suicidal than responding with a full attempted first strike. As a side note, SLBMs also provided for the potential of decapitation strikes, which are a far more measured (...) nuclear strike than attempting to destroy the entire population. Both sides knew that nobody wanted to suicide their entire country, and knew that both sides knew that (et cetera,) which lead to a number of responses between "do nothing" and "kill the entire world." I'd like to think that the US and USSR wouldn't've attempted a first strike even if the tanks were rolling into the capitals, but that might be idealistic.

by Dove 13y ago

mtdewcmu 13y ago

Good point. The military should know where their own planes are, too.

lostlogin 13y ago
Maybe. Their record for knowing where stuff is isn't that good. The Iraq adventure lost $1billion of stuff. This shouldn't be confused with the overall cost (some would also say loss here) of a few trillion dollars for the whole episode. http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500257_162-3584247.html http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500257_162-3584247.html
- twoodfin 13y ago
  Iraq war estimates in the trillions involve some pretty iffy calculations of long-term effects, like guessing the impact on the price of oil. The actually budgetary cost was much lower.
  - lostlogin 13y ago
    Agreed. And as soon as your reaching any figure anywhere near that high, any source of error is going to make a large difference. I'm sure everyone agrees that the cost V benefit ratio wasn't that good though.
    - mtdewcmu 13y ago
      Yes, but they said Saddam was a Hitler. A cheap, shabbier version, sort of like Hitler's wayward alcoholic brother. And minus the million-man German army, etc.
- mtdewcmu 13y ago
  Well, losing hardware is not quite the same as losing track of flying planes with nuclear bombs on board. When the plane went down, you would sure hope that they knew to send help.
  - lostlogin 13y ago
    There have been a few bombs lost overtime according the the Wikipedia page, usually as the result of plane mechanical issues.
- ballard 13y ago
  Funny you should mention this. So my mom was a civil-service accountant/programmer for the armed services at NAS Moffett Field in the 1970's. She recounted story after story of conspicous waste, especially related to expensive aircraft parts (lost/stolen/missing). Also, a guy I know became very unpopular (career ending) with COs for objecting to needlessly chewing up $1 mil helicopter turbines. So it seems par for the course.

NegativeK 13y ago

> A first strike in the cold war was expected to be all out Not universally. The potential for a limited exchange wasn't completely discounted -- the US or the USSR could detonate a single explosive in a side conflict or in the mainlands to signal that they're no longer posturing and are willing to deal with the diplomatic consequences of a single detonation. Similarly, submarines and SLBMs (with MIRVs, no less,) guaranteed MAD even in the face of a full first strike; responding to a single explosion with a single retaliation (and a diplomatic message of "you knew this was going to be the response; don't escalate") was a lot less suicidal than responding with a full attempted first strike. As a side note, SLBMs also provided for the potential of decapitation strikes, which are a far more measured (...) nuclear strike than attempting to destroy the entire population. Both sides knew that nobody wanted to suicide their entire country, and knew that both sides knew that (et cetera,) which lead to a number of responses between "do nothing" and "kill the entire world." I'd like to think that the US and USSR wouldn't've attempted a first strike even if the tanks were rolling into the capitals, but that might be idealistic.