Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The risk of nuclear war between the US and Russia
 
  • Locked thread
Morbus
May 18, 2004

axeil posted:

China only has 4 ballistic missile submarines (the Type 094 or Jin class) which may or may not even be deployed. They carry 12 nuclear missiles each. The US has 18 Ohio-class submarines somewhere in the water right now, each which has 24 Trident II nuclear missiles.

It is unclear if 4 subs is enough to serve as a valid 2nd strike option as I am not a nuclear strategist, only someone who's studied a lot of game theory. 18 Ohio-class subs however are considered a valid amount for full second-strike capabilities so somewhere between 0 and 432 missiles are needed for a second strike threat to be credible.

And yes, Israel is a major issue. Of course they deny that they have nukes, but everyone knows they do. This is why they've had the Samson policy of launching all their nukes at everyone if they are ever in danger of being destroyed even if by conventional forces. It's a fairly crazy policy but one they need to maintain (and maintain credibly) to avoid being nuked immediately if poo poo goes south.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option

While nuclear submarines are the best option for a "mininaml effective deterrent" 2nd strike capability (and China is of course aware of this and seeking to increase it's SSBN force), they aren't the only option. Mobile ICBMs, if effectively deployed and managed, offer a credible-enough 2nd strike capability that even an all out counterfoce 1st strike by the US would probably result in dozens of warheads being launched. On top of even a small SSBN force, the resulting destruction may not be "total" in the sense that it would be vs an all-out countervalue 2nd strike from Russia, but it would nonetheless decimate the US economy, dozens of major cities, and kill a double digit % of the population.

To "win" a nuclear war with China, the US could not rely simply on its numerical superiority of warheads in a 1st strike, but would also have to have attack submarines in position to destroy some of China's SSBNs, and some means of identifying and destroying most land-mobile ICBM systems before they launch. This isn't impossible with stealth bombers and a good anti-submarine game, but it is getting into fantasy land.

In any case winning a nuclear war with China is a good start to losing one with Russia.

* # ¿ Jan 20, 2017 20:36
  • Quote
Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 16, 2024 04:04
  • Quote
  • Locked thread
The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The risk of nuclear war between the US and Russia