Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Nuclear Deterrence

  • 15-09-2024 4:48pm
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,960 ✭✭✭


    I wonder what is the state of play with regard to this whole issue.

    I read recently that the West may be close to a first strike capability (taking out a whole country's arsenal before they can retaliate)

    Maybe that is more dangerous a situation than the MAD I have spent my life under.(for god knows how many reasons)

    The world is happy to let this subject drift (well drift might be too kind as it is evolving rapidly with a seeming acknowledgement that non -proliferation has failed in the case of NK and the nuclear race involving taking out missiles to be as important as firing them)

    We also seem happy to vote for or not be existentially afraid to have in power people who are clearly mentally deficient)



«1

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,401 ✭✭✭✭Cluedo Monopoly


    What are they doing in the Hyacinth House?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,453 ✭✭✭thatsdaft


    ”I read recently”

    Where? Do you have a link?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,436 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    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….



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,960 ✭✭✭amandstu


    Sorry ,no."I read" should have been "I heard that on the TV recently but can't rememember where or when"



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,436 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,453 ✭✭✭thatsdaft


    I read that one, don’t remember any claims that “west” has first strike capabilities, if anything it makes it clear at best US might be able to stop a couple of missiles out of hundreds as there’s only a dozen rockets in its current counter system and even then the interception rate is dismal

    the scenario it describes with single Korean icbm (launched by a crazy north Korean) hitting Washington and secondary sub launched missile hitting Californian nuclear plant

    he can talk about it all he wants, his buddy in Kremlin he admires so much is giving the whole world in real-time an example of why no country will ever again willingly give nuclear weapons up and has probably set off a race for about a dozen countries to build their own systems



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,642 ✭✭✭thomil


    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

    Good luck trying to figure me out. I haven't managed that myself yet!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,414 ✭✭✭✭Kermit.de.frog


    This is a disingenuous take.

    Yes these are appalling weapons no one ever wants to see used but the US used the weapons to end the war with Japan. If they hadn't been used the US would have had to fire bomb many more cities and do a ground invasion of Japan costing many, many times more lives.

    That's just a fact. Japan was not going to surrender.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,306 ✭✭✭carveone


    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...



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,057 ✭✭✭mulbot




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,787 ✭✭✭Feisar


    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.

    First they came for the socialists...



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,426 ✭✭✭Quantum Erasure


    SHALL WE PLAY A GAME?
    



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,787 ✭✭✭Feisar


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

    First they came for the socialists...



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,414 ✭✭✭✭Kermit.de.frog


    That moral standpoint was not on the table unfortunately. It wasn't an option. There were only bad choices. It was either use the bomb or do the ground invasion of Japan.

    No one argues a ground invasion would have been the better choice. It would have cost millions of lives and prolonged the war indefinitely.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,787 ✭✭✭Feisar


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

    First they came for the socialists...



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,414 ✭✭✭✭Kermit.de.frog


    By that logic you could ask why didn't Japan surrender after Hiroshima? That would have saved Nagisaki and over 40,000 lives. It was obvious the magnitude of what had happened but devotion to the Emperor continued to take precedence despite all the death and destruction. The whole story is a tragedy.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 405 ✭✭dockysher


    Conor mcgregor, he is our main nuclear deterrent



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,854 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    the second one was just evil though, more a science experiment

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,402 ✭✭✭keeponhurling


    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.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,453 ✭✭✭thatsdaft


    The radar that was hit was south facing towards Middle East and Ukraine

    Missiles from us or China would go over the pole from north

    The Russians started largest war in Europe since ww2 with the incredible conviction that their **** won’t get bombed back



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,453 ✭✭✭thatsdaft


    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

    Post edited by thatsdaft on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,943 ✭✭✭CalamariFritti


    So they just 'had' to bomb two cities. Entirely civilian targets. They were no other options/targets. Ok.

    Sorry you claim morality wasnt on the table and you hide behind that yourself but IMO its one of THE grade A horror shockers of the modern world and its grand cos it was the Americans yay and sure they did it to save lives in the end. Or so they say.

    I just can't reconcile with this viewpoint at all sorry. And I'm not singling out the US even. I know its been happening throughout history to some degree but especially since large industrial scale destruction has become possible how anyone thinks it's acceptable to target cities/civilians to break morale or something is completely beyond me. Its absolutely vile the biggest crime possible and there is no excuse for it.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 403 ✭✭Randycove


    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.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,414 ✭✭✭✭Kermit.de.frog


    Indeed. Some historians have argued that part of the reason the Japanese military leadership didn't immediately collectively call for surrender after Hiroshima was because of the firebombings that preceded it in other cities. They basically thought it looked like more of the same and didn't fully grasp how the bomb made their situation completely hopeless. The Americans were also looking for a quick surrender before Russia joined the war in Manchuria. This might partly explain the narrow window between Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Of course they were too late because Russia entered Manchuria the day before Nagasaki. Stalin brought this forward because he was afraid the Americans would force surrender with the bomb before the Soviets got their chance to intervene.

    All very murky. The Americans were convinced Hiroshima would immediately lead to surrender. Sadly wasn't to be.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,414 ✭✭✭✭Kermit.de.frog


    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.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 169 ✭✭PixelCrafter


    Always find it slightly amusing that the ultra high tech 1980s WOPR looks more like something from the mid-1950s, or a telephone switch or something. Hollywood used to LOVE those flickering lights and spinning reel-to-reel tape drives, which were a feature of very old computer tech, and 1970s telephone exchanges, which were often used as props on Hollywood movies.

    There's about as much risk of one of those things becoming sentient as your toaster.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,789 ✭✭✭wandererz


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



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,306 ✭✭✭carveone


    Wargames was the second movie to directly influence policy under Reagan, the first being of course The Day After.

    NY times article on cybersecurity



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,832 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,832 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,943 ✭✭✭CalamariFritti


    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.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,116 ✭✭✭ItHurtsWhenIP


    I worked on IBM System 38s and AS/400s from the 80's into the 90's that used those reel-to-reel tape drives. While it was ancient tech (slow and limited storage), we needed backward compatibility for access to old archived data.

    I was delighted when they bought a new main backup drive that used 8mm cartridges. Instead of 6 or 7 reel tapes for our weekly backup, it all fitted very easily on one dinky little cartridge.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,602 ✭✭✭✭o1s1n
    Master of the Universe


    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.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,863 ✭✭✭Beta Ray Bill


    They didn't have to do anything, they choose to because they wanted to win, and given the painful lessons learned at Iwo Jima a land invasion was absolutely out of the question.

    The USA only had two weapons (the Japanese didn't know this), creating more weapons would have taken months.

    Nagasaki and Hiroshima were Industrial cities which were key to Japanese war efforts. They were also Army depots, both cities were also surrounded by hills which focused the blast, and they hadn't been extensively bombed like other Japanese cities at the time. That is the reason they were chosen. There were other candidate targets: Kitakyushu, Yokohama, Niigata and Kyoto (Kyoto was replaced by Nagasaki)

    In relation to the the "Hard Numbers" of people killed… The Japanese Imperial army murdered more civilians than any of the other Axis powers, well over 20 million people. Relative to that figure, the number of people killed in Nagasaki and Hiroshima is barely 1%.

    By 1945 the Japanese were beaten, there was absolutely no way they could stop the Americans approaching and had no way to rebuild their Army or Navy or Airforce. They knew they were beaten, yet refused to surrender.

    And even after the Nuclear weapons were used the Japanese war council was split at 50:50 on whether to surrender, it took the deciding vote of Emperor make them surrender.

    The weapons are awful. They serve as a lesson, we need resolve out differences via engagement and cooperation, not deterrents.



    Post edited by Beta Ray Bill on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 403 ✭✭Randycove


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



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,602 ✭✭✭✭o1s1n
    Master of the Universe


    Totally different scenarios though.

    What happened in Nanjing was a wartime atrocity.

    What happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was potentially the first step in mankind eventually obliterating itself.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 403 ✭✭Randycove


    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.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,453 ✭✭✭thatsdaft


    St Paul’s log, sky date 1941.0806:

    Xiao from Nanjing requested special consideration from Karmic..en manger because she insists being gang raped and murdered is not as bad as fate as Aiko from Hiroshima whose existence ended in the split second flash



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,602 ✭✭✭✭o1s1n
    Master of the Universe


    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.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,602 ✭✭✭✭o1s1n
    Master of the Universe


    It actually doesn't bear thinking about. I always think a great way of putting it in perspective is that when we talk about 'tactical' nuclear weapons, we're not talking about much less power than the Hiroshima bomb if you have it on the same scale as a hydrogen bomb.

    If that's what modern yeilds view as potentially 'tactical', just think of the sheer magnitude of a hydrogen bomb.

    It's a bit like trying to comprehend the vastness of space or even the wealth of billionaires (or soon to be trillionaires!). It's all just so many orders of magnitude beyond your usual points of comparison it's almost impossible to comprehend.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,475 ✭✭✭Archduke Franz Ferdinand


    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



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,602 ✭✭✭✭o1s1n
    Master of the Universe


    Best thing to do alright is to live close to a city centre so you are vapourised before you even know what's going on. 😁

    It's a bit scary when you start looking into probability and statistics on the whole subject.

    Now that nuclear weapons exist and there are delivery systems to send them across the globe, there's a certain level of probability you can attribute to them being used.

    If that is the case you can compound the probability year on year to an outcome of it being inevitable. Whether it's tomorrow or in 8,000 years is down to the yearly probability used, but the end result is that it always happens at some point.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,453 ✭✭✭thatsdaft


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



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,854 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    its a bit depressing that there are "you need to make a decision now sir" people about and that the world came close to a flock of geese and dodgy interpretation of radar away from Armageddon.

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,602 ✭✭✭✭o1s1n
    Master of the Universe


    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!'



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 403 ✭✭Randycove


    I played around with one of those nuclear detonation sites a while back, simulating a 100ktn bomb on Leinster house (wishful thinking some might say).

    Basically, everything between the Liffy and the canal was vaporized, turned to dust. From there (going south) there was unlikely to be any buildings standing as far south as Rathfarnham and no windows intact within the M50. That was a 100 kilo tonne bomb, the Russians have detonated a 50 mega tonne bomb.

    Hiroshima was 15 kilotonnes.

    It is mind numbing.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,854 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    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

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,602 ✭✭✭✭o1s1n
    Master of the Universe


    Fun fact about that nukemap website, I used to use it to see how far I could travel from my house when the Covid 2km restriction was in force.

    Can't remember which device it was but one of them had a 2km explosion radius. Quite handy!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,602 ✭✭✭✭o1s1n
    Master of the Universe


    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.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,836 ✭✭✭Brussels Sprout


    I don't think I have ever agreed with a Kermit post before but what he said is historically accurate.



  • Advertisement
Advertisement