4 ms·

Why would a country need several hundred (or even thousand) nukes, surely a handful would be enough?

pjc50 12y ago
The numbers calculated for the US and USSR would have been done on the basis of enough nukes to hit every single facility capable of retaliation and all cities over a certain size after allowing for failures and anti-missile systems.
TeMPOraL 12y ago
So that you can never destroy them before some get launched at you. Though I suspect that, in case of US and USSR, at some point it turned into a longest nuclear penis contest.
VLM 12y ago
The numbers seem mostly made up. 288 trident II... well OK at 24 per Ohio SSBN thats implying 12 subs are ready to launch 100% of their missiles at all times. However there are only 14 Ohio SSBNs. And the rotation is 2.5 months on patrol (figure maybe 2 months effective?) and 1 month in port. I imagine a giant crane lowering supplies into the sub might block launched missiles... I don't think they have the compressed air online to launch while in port, although maybe... So more realistically, assuming no long term refits the navy has maybe 7 or so in position ready to launch. So WRT the infographic, maybe 168 ready to launch. However. Everything from here on is classified so I'm speculating. There are tactical conditions where trying to launch will merely get yourself sunk before launching. So you've got a ASW destroyer and helos overhead pounding the sea with active sonar because we're having a nuclear war here. Speaking of nuclear war, during a nuclear war being on board a deployed SSBN is probably somewhat hazardous duty, so "we" probably don't have 14 floating SSBNs for very long. Also peculiar range issues and launch geometry issues, if theoretically we're at war with China, a launch trajectory passing directly over Moscow is going to totally freak out the Russians at the worst imaginable time. Also from a strategic standpoint using up your entire force in one attack is really dumb. Also there are weather related issues, if you're in high seas you might have launch issues. Sure you can pop a missile out the tube but if it starts its launch in the air sideways thats a mission failure. So I think in actual warfare maybe only 2 subs get to launch, at best. Suddenly we're down to 48 missiles in the air from the 288 infographic. Best case. Good argument for one. Or 24 missiles. Again more classified BS. The best NASA and the russians can do under ideal conditions is launch maybe half of the time on time without a failure. Of course they put a lot of money into being reliable, but... I feel 50% successful launches might be semi-realistic? I mean, every attack sub and ASW helicopter is going to be all over you the instant the first missile launches, the odds of surviving until the 24th missile launches seem low, which is why we don't deploy subs will 500 tubes because tubes 200-500 will never survive to fire... If some 50 cent integrated circuit fails or some valve, its non trivial to fix the missile while underway and you might not have the spare parts. I stand by about 50% estimate. The MIRV thing means at re-entry you can attack nearby targets, so the equivalent of Saint Paul and Minneapolis are both in big trouble, but for trajectory and aerospace reasons its hard to hit Seattle and DC at the same time. So you can pack multiple warheads on a missile, but you really only get maybe 30 targets outta 24 missiles. Why do you think we spread our missile launch fields all over the upper midwest instead of putting them all in one county in Texas? Finally we know from semi-public test results that not every test goes perfectly, so I have a gut feeling that in a real nuclear war no holds barred, high radiation environment, 25 or so hits is reasonable. Hopefully thats enough to discourage any belligerent from starting a war they'd lose. You can see the motivation to not decrease stocks by 10x or 100x because that takes the odds of 25 hits down to 2.5 hits or 0.25 hits. Decrease the number of nukes by 100x and we'll kill dozens of millions within one generation in WW3, guaranteed, not much changes in human nature. Compared to dozens of millions of human lives, building a couple hundred ICBMs is really cheap insurance!
- lmm 12y ago
  I think you're underestimating how big the ocean is. Most of the time a strategic missile submarine is not followed; attack submarines or helicopters may be heading there after you've launched but at that point it's too late. In a first strike scenario overwhelming force is absolutely the way to go. You're trying to completely eliminate the ability to retaliate. It's not a scenario where "holding back a reserve" makes sense. ICBMs are routine, proven technology; the fair comparison is with commercial satellite launches, not with interplanetary probes. And those have a success rate a whole lot higher than 50%.

pjc50 12y ago

The numbers calculated for the US and USSR would have been done on the basis of enough nukes to hit every single facility capable of retaliation and all cities over a certain size after allowing for failures and anti-missile systems.

TeMPOraL 12y ago

So that you can never destroy them before some get launched at you. Though I suspect that, in case of US and USSR, at some point it turned into a longest nuclear penis contest.

VLM 12y ago

The numbers seem mostly made up. 288 trident II... well OK at 24 per Ohio SSBN thats implying 12 subs are ready to launch 100% of their missiles at all times. However there are only 14 Ohio SSBNs. And the rotation is 2.5 months on patrol (figure maybe 2 months effective?) and 1 month in port. I imagine a giant crane lowering supplies into the sub might block launched missiles... I don't think they have the compressed air online to launch while in port, although maybe... So more realistically, assuming no long term refits the navy has maybe 7 or so in position ready to launch. So WRT the infographic, maybe 168 ready to launch. However. Everything from here on is classified so I'm speculating. There are tactical conditions where trying to launch will merely get yourself sunk before launching. So you've got a ASW destroyer and helos overhead pounding the sea with active sonar because we're having a nuclear war here. Speaking of nuclear war, during a nuclear war being on board a deployed SSBN is probably somewhat hazardous duty, so "we" probably don't have 14 floating SSBNs for very long. Also peculiar range issues and launch geometry issues, if theoretically we're at war with China, a launch trajectory passing directly over Moscow is going to totally freak out the Russians at the worst imaginable time. Also from a strategic standpoint using up your entire force in one attack is really dumb. Also there are weather related issues, if you're in high seas you might have launch issues. Sure you can pop a missile out the tube but if it starts its launch in the air sideways thats a mission failure. So I think in actual warfare maybe only 2 subs get to launch, at best. Suddenly we're down to 48 missiles in the air from the 288 infographic. Best case. Good argument for one. Or 24 missiles. Again more classified BS. The best NASA and the russians can do under ideal conditions is launch maybe half of the time on time without a failure. Of course they put a lot of money into being reliable, but... I feel 50% successful launches might be semi-realistic? I mean, every attack sub and ASW helicopter is going to be all over you the instant the first missile launches, the odds of surviving until the 24th missile launches seem low, which is why we don't deploy subs will 500 tubes because tubes 200-500 will never survive to fire... If some 50 cent integrated circuit fails or some valve, its non trivial to fix the missile while underway and you might not have the spare parts. I stand by about 50% estimate. The MIRV thing means at re-entry you can attack nearby targets, so the equivalent of Saint Paul and Minneapolis are both in big trouble, but for trajectory and aerospace reasons its hard to hit Seattle and DC at the same time. So you can pack multiple warheads on a missile, but you really only get maybe 30 targets outta 24 missiles. Why do you think we spread our missile launch fields all over the upper midwest instead of putting them all in one county in Texas? Finally we know from semi-public test results that not every test goes perfectly, so I have a gut feeling that in a real nuclear war no holds barred, high radiation environment, 25 or so hits is reasonable. Hopefully thats enough to discourage any belligerent from starting a war they'd lose. You can see the motivation to not decrease stocks by 10x or 100x because that takes the odds of 25 hits down to 2.5 hits or 0.25 hits. Decrease the number of nukes by 100x and we'll kill dozens of millions within one generation in WW3, guaranteed, not much changes in human nature. Compared to dozens of millions of human lives, building a couple hundred ICBMs is really cheap insurance!

lmm 12y ago
I think you're underestimating how big the ocean is. Most of the time a strategic missile submarine is not followed; attack submarines or helicopters may be heading there after you've launched but at that point it's too late. In a first strike scenario overwhelming force is absolutely the way to go. You're trying to completely eliminate the ability to retaliate. It's not a scenario where "holding back a reserve" makes sense. ICBMs are routine, proven technology; the fair comparison is with commercial satellite launches, not with interplanetary probes. And those have a success rate a whole lot higher than 50%.