Nuclear Deterrence

WOPR?

chomsky has been talking about this his whole life, and with america being the only country to actually use such weapons on the public, its definitely the west thats the most dangerous with such weaponry!

but in saying that, american presidents do not have direct access to the use of nuclear weaponry, there is a strict process in order for such orders to be given, but if they keep voting in nut jobs like himself, that safety process could easily be altered to be allowed do so, so….

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Nuclear-War-Scenario-compulsive-non-fiction/dp/1911709593

…seems to be scaring the bejesus outta folks at the moment…..

The concept of a preemptive strike has been around for a long time. It was championed by Curtis LeMay in the 1950s, as well as at various times during the Nixon and Reagan administrations, but from what I can see, it was as illusory back then as it is now. Allow me to elaborate.

Currently, the nuclear arsenals of all major nuclear powers, and the basis of their deterrence policy, are based around nuclear tipped ballistic missiles, which are either silo-based, ground mobile, or submarine-based. I’m ignoring aircraft-launched weapons like the US B61 bombs or the French SAMP nuclear-tipped cruise missiles for now, as these have specific roles to play outside of “traditional” deterrence.

These weapons each have individual advantages. Ground-based missiles, whether silo or vehicle-mounted, are in constant communication with central command and can be launched at a moment’s notice. However, silo-based missiles can’t easily be moved and even road-mobile launchers have a number of fixed bases for maintenance and support, making them vulnerable to the type of surprise first strike you alluded to.

Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missiles, SLBMs meanwhile are not only mobile, but are also moving in an environment that is notoriously hard to monitor, making them much more resilient against a first strike by the very fact that nobody really knows where that submarine is, apart from its own command staff. However, radio waves don’t penetrate water very well, which means that these subs are often out of communication with central command, having to come to periscope depth at regular intervals and/or relying on kilometre-long VLF radio aerials streamed behind the boat. This, together with issues around navigation and targeting that make SLBMs pretty inaccurate weapons, have meant that they are generally considered a secure “second strike” capability.

Now, over the last 2-3 decades, western nations have made great strides in increasing the accuracy of SLBMs. Indeed, the current ballistic missiles deployed on US Navy and Royal Navy ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs), the Trident D5 is now considered to have an accuracy that is similar to its land-based counterpart, the Minuteman III. I must admit that I haven’t read Anne Jacobsen’s book that you linked above, but I presume that this increase in accuracy is one of the reasons why she considers a surprise first strike to be possible now.

Personally speaking, I don’t believe that this is the case, or that it will ever be the case. The reason? Physics. Granted, modern SLBMs, especially those in use by the US, France, Britain, Russia and China, have an enormous range and it is generally said that they don’t even have to move away from their piers to hit their targets. However, they also have a minimum distance that they need to be away from their targets in order for their missiles to work through their ballistic flight profile, conduct staging and re-enter the atmosphere at the correct angle.

Why is this important? Because all of this increases the flight time of the missile in question, which gives more time for their opponents’ early warning systems to detect the launch, verify that it’s real, and pass the warning up the chain of command. This in return gives the national command authority of the nation in question more time to make a decision and, by extension, more time for the launch order to make its way down to the respective launch control centres and SSBNs. And make no mistake, they will be detected. Both the US and Russia have powerful radar systems to track missiles in flight, just look at RAF Fylingdales over in the UK, as well as infrared satellites in orbit to detect the heat plume of a missile launch.

That’s why I personally don’t believe that there’s a chance of a surprise first strike. Isaac Newton and the tyranny of the rocket equation make sure that missiles will have to follow a rather predictable course and stand out like a sore thumb. While the nation at the receiving end might not be able to defeat these incoming missiles, it will in all likelihood have enough time to launch a counterattack before their command network and at least a significant portion of their land-based missiles are destroyed. And that’s before the secure “second strike” reserve in the shape of the SSBNs receive their launch orders, which might be hours or days later. It’s this rather horrid basis that deterrence is based on.

If you want to take a bit of a deeper dive into the matter, I recommend checking out the following videos from the YouTube channel of the US’ Sandia National Laboratory. They’re pretty dry but thoroughly interesting:

On Deterrence:

US Strategic Nuclear Strategy, Part 1

US Strategic Nuclear Strategy, Part 2

I believe the increased accuracy is due to the "burst-height compensating super-fuze". There was an article on The Bulliten of Concerned Scientists a few years ago which took the view that the increased accuracy effectively increased the strike power of the US arsenal (https://thebulletin.org/2017/03/how-us-nuclear-force-modernization-is-undermining-strategic-stability-the-burst-height-compensating-super-fuze/).

gives more time for their opponents’ early warning systems to detect the launch, verify that it’s real, and pass the warning up the chain of command

One reason why I though the Ukrainian attack on the EWS at Armavir was reckless. Not that many media mentioned it. As the Russians don't have the tech for space based EWS, taking out radar based systems like Armavir blinds them to submarine launches from that coverage zone until the Moscow based radar picks them up. At which point there's almost no time for decision making. It makes for a more twitchy environment which is just what the world needs more of.

People usually say the Russians would never first strike and that's certainly believable, no matter what they say on TV. But they might launch in the mistaken belief that the US has already struck. That's always been the danger. That someone does something stupid under stress.

Anyway, on a lighter note, the BBC is planning to show Threads in October. I didn't sleep the first time around (1984) so I wonder does it still have the power to scare the crap out of people...

Slippery slope yer on there.

Edit: not that I necessarily disagree with you. However it becomes very hard to argue against any civilian casualties with that POV.

But yet who has been found guilty of such disgusting and disgraceful behaviour?

Well the US could have surrendered to prevent loss of life?

Conor mcgregor, he is our main nuclear deterrent

A key reason for the relatively peaceful decades since WW2 is that the stronger Western powers (e.g. the likes of France Britain, Germany etc.) seem to have given up on the aspiration to take over foreign countries. There aren't even smaller political parties in those places advocating starting a war overseas. It's no longer a thing.

Ordinary people don't want war, and never did. They want food on the table and a good life.

The only people who want war are people likes kings or dictators who will be far away from the battlefield in their palaces, and can chalk up "victories".

If the leader of a democratic country started a war, they'd be out of a job pretty soon.

In my mind, the most likely countries to launch a nuclear attack are ones who have few checks and balances, and are not accountable to the people.

everyone remembers Hiroshima or Nagasaki but forget the 100,000+ died (more than both combined) in conventional firebombing which destroyed Tokyo with hurricane strength fires that melted people into roads

Or dozens of other places like that

Edit:typo

The alternative was a full blown invasion of Japan, which when you consider that 250,000 people lost their lives in the battle for Okinawa, would probably have killed twice as many people than both of the bombs did.

The firebombings killed around 400,000 people (and that's only a very crude estimate, it may have been much higher), made millions homeless and destroyed nearly 40% of all urban areas on their own. That would have continued in tandem with a land invasion.

I really don't think that Terrence is going to mind one way or another.

To the nuclear family?

So a demonstration of nuclear power against a military target would have been completely out of the question before going against cities yes? I refuse to believe that tbh.

I think one massive long term benefit of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (weird thing to say, but stay with me!) was that mankind got to witness the true horror of atomic warfare early on in weapon development with 'relatively' low yield bombs.

Imagine if their testing on civilian populations had stayed theoretical until the 50s when the hydrogen bomb came along and one of them was used during another conflict.

I was in Hiroshima last year, have always wanted to visit. It is incredibly sobering to stand in a place where a nuclear bomb was actually detonated. Wherever you stand, it's highly likely someone died on the ground under you. The feeling is hard to put into words.

I was actually in Auschwitz last weekend (having a bit of a heavy year of traveling!) and there's a similar feeling of weight of what happened in the location around you.

or to put it another way, the Japanese killed more civilians during the massacre of Nanjing than both of these bombs.

it was, but as alluded to earlier, it also gave the human race a glimpse of what these weapons can do.

I believe the Trident warheads are up to 12 times the power and when you consider that each sub carries 40, even the UK’s relatively small cache is unbelievably devastating.

Whataboutery gets your nowhere, you can analyse individual historical events without reverting to 'well what about X atrocity…' they all deserve to be considered on their own merits.

It's not a misery competition.

the more countries who get their hands on nuclear weapons the more chance they will be used whether by accident or design. I personally don’t worry about them anymore, it’s pointless, l can’t control them! We all know they are there, if a full scale nuclear war happened it means the end of civilisation and life as we know it. It would be better to go immediately that be one of the sorry few who might survive such a catastrophe

I wasn’t the one to have made the comparison initially

I was reading 'Nuclear war:A Scenario' a little while ago and the proposed situation is North Korea launching an ICBM at the US.

The US retaliate, but to do so they've to launch their own ICBMs on a trajectory over Russia to get to North Korea.

So there's a point where you've guys sitting in Russia with a load of ICBMs registering on their radar coming towards them, with guys on the phone from the US saying 'Trust us, they're not for you!'

I didnt even think of that particular kind of possibility , I'd hope the Americans had "war gamed" that scenario and would have subs nearby on the assumption that there would have been a build up of tensions preceding such an event

the immediate future I see is that nuclear powers should learn to keep a certain distance between each other not figure out schemes intended circumvent redlines or build bluffing into policy

The submarine aspect is even more terrifying when it comes to launch / impact times.

An ICBM launched from North Korea takes under 30 minutes to hit the US mainland. That's a whole lot of decisions that have to be made in a very short period of time. But at least the US would have recorded the launch before the ICBM goes dark and would know it's on the way.

30 minutes then seems like an eternity of decision / intervention time when you start to factor in how quickly submarines can strike population centres if they sneak up on the coast of a country.

In theory you could have a North Korean submarine pop up on the West coast of the US and have San Francisco nuked before anyone could even to begin to consider what was happening.