|
Fojar38 posted:This isn't how nuclear strategy works. MAD is an equilibrium that can easily be disrupted if there is ever a circumstance where one side thinks that they can win a nuclear war with a first strike that disables the enemy's ability to retaliate. You're only thinking about China's capabilities in the context of a Chinese first strike when China's second strike capability is virtually nonexistent. yes. this is the important point. MAD only works when neither side can ensure they can destroy their enemy's second strike capabilities. I suspect China does not have the ability to destroy the US's second strike capability but the US does have the ability to destroy China's. In that case, if total war is imminent the correct choice from China is to use their nukes before they are destroyed by the US. This is a very bad outcome. Paradoxically, the world would be safer if China had more nukes to ensure that MAD is in play. The only hope is that if the US and China do get into a shooting war it's more like Korea or the Falkland Islands with a specific limited objective and less like the total war of WW1/WW2 where the goal is the destruction of the state.
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2017 15:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 13:18 |
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Ditto with China. Someone describe the obvious chain of escalation that would lead to a Sino-American nuclear exchange that doesn't hinge on someone involved being The Joker IRL i'll play -Increasing agitation around the Taiwan issue leads to a cooling of relations between the USA and China -Trump/the GOP Congress decide to pass a harsh tariff, pushing China's fragile economy over the edge -Facing unrest at home, Chinese leadership becomes more outwardly aggressive towards its interests ala Putin -Tensions run high in the Taiwanese straight and someone fucks up and accidentally starts shooting -The war was started without specific aim and quickly escalates to something dangerous like "conquer Taiwan once and for all" -The US gets involved and Trump makes it clear that he will not tolerate the Chinese state to continue to exist in its current form -China begins losing and facing the threat of extinction decides to threaten use of its missiles on the US West Coast in an attempt to end the war -The US does not take this threat seriously -China makes good on its threat -Bye, bye West Coast -US Retaliatory strike (although whether this happens is up for debate, but I'm pretty sure the current administration wouldn't hesitate) Cerebral Bore posted:They might have a spot of trouble with the Secret Service agents and/or Trump's private bodyguards, though. i believe Sec Def has to confirm the order, however that's not a constitutional provision or anything so it's not much to rest on. ultimately requiring sec def to approve is pointless anyway since trump or any other president can just start firing sec defs and moving down the ladder until he finds someone willing to enforce the order. if trump really wanted to use nukes and sec def/the joint chiefs did not approve their only mechanism is a coup or congress taking immediate action to impeach and remove him from power. axeil fucked around with this message at 16:08 on Jan 20, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2017 16:00
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Is trump a reaper? is he indoctrinating soldiers? Why would any of those people be in favor letting trump first strike russia and starting some weird random nuclear war? as we've never had a cabinet attempt a coup against a president it is unclear if the secret service/military would side with the coup or potus. testing that theory when we are under threat of a nuclear exchange is...unwise. if sec def or whoever tells trump they're not firing the missiles and he says "you're fired" and then is confronted with the full cabinet saying "no, you're fired" it's a really bad time to test whether the secret service/military follow trump's orders to "shoot the traitors" or the cabinet's order to "arrest and remove trump" axeil fucked around with this message at 16:14 on Jan 20, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2017 16:11
|
|
|
vegetables posted:Nuclear chat seems to continually involve people arguing that systems designed to have no safeguards will have safeguards kick in if need be, but I'm not sure this is actually true. i mean, ultimately the safeguard we're talking about is one that exists at all times in all societies which is "palace coup". so long as there's organized leadership there's always a chance the king's council can oust the king. it is loving terrifying that is the only real safeguard though.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2017 16:25
|
|
|
LolitaSama posted:This is fascinating, where does the consensus come from that America would only be superficially damaged in a nuke strike against china and that MAD principle of China being also able to hit back equally as hard not being a thing? Because they have less nukes? China currently has around 260 nuclear warheads. The US has around 1,750 active warheads and 6,970 total currently. In the event of a nuclear exchange, the US would be able to deploy enough warheads to possibly knock out China's ability to retaliate while China would have no ability to cripple the US nuclear response. This causes an imbalance in the MAD equilibrium and would allow the US to "win" a nuclear exchange, thus paradoxically making China's use of nuclear weapons much more likely. You can also do the same exercise with the US and any other state but Russia and Russia with any other state but the US. If you can prevent second strike, you can win a nuclear war, which is a very bad thing for global peace and stability. for reference here's how much everyone has Russia 1,790 active, 7,300 total USA 1,750 active, 6,970 total UK 150 active, 215 total France 290 active, 300 total China Unknown active number, 260 total India Unknown active number, 100-120 total Pakistan Unknown active number, 110-130 total North Korea Unknown active number, <10 total Israel Unknown active number, 60-400 total sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons axeil fucked around with this message at 19:20 on Jan 20, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
LolitaSama posted:But how do you knock out Nuclear Subs? Wouldn't the presense of those always ensure America couldn't knock out China's strike back potential? So is it because they simply have less that MAD isn't enforce or because they couldn't launch the little that they even had? If you could take nuclear subs out of the equation, and if this was the case, Israel would be in huge poo poo too. Not hard to knock out the Nuclear capabilities of a country the size of new jersey. 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option axeil fucked around with this message at 22:30 on Jan 20, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2017 19:25
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:You know the band "megadeth"? that is named after the concept of "megadeath" which was a cold war idea about counting out how many millions of people would die that was talked about in the context that as there could be an acceptable amount of megadeath. How many million people could those submarines kill? Not 300 million, so we would win, hurray! for a real life simulation of this, please see the game "DEFCON" where you "win" if you can kill more of the bad guy than you yourself lose, even if the world is turned into a hellscape http://store.steampowered.com/app/1520/ And yeah, that's basically what I'm getting at. 18 SSBNs are enough to ensure there's enough megadeath on the attacking state that they wouldn't "win" if they struck first. It's unclear if 4 is enough to do that in a hypothetical Chinese/US nuclear war. Also there is doubt about whether the Chinese subs even have missiles on them. At a Congressional hearing back in 2015 members of the US military testified that the US does not currently believe there are any nuclear missiles on these subs. The history of nuclear strategy is really fascinating and horrifying if you all want to read more about it. These are all good places to start and more rigorously define/explain things like "second strike" and "no first use" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_strategy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_strike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_strike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_first_use axeil fucked around with this message at 19:41 on Jan 20, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2017 19:28
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:You missed the most hosed up one: I also like that instead of calling the opposite of "No First Use" "First Use" (AKA "We Will Totally Nuke You") they call it "Defensive Use Only" But yeah the Samson Option is one of the most hosed up nuclear strategies out there. It's basically "if our existence is threatened we will nuke everyone nearby including possibly ourselves with the primary goal being killing everyone and not the destruction of military targets". It's a suicidal version of Massive Retaliation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massive_retaliation Also kind of chilling that the Israeli government all but threatened the US government with implementing it during the Yom Kippur War if the US didn't send supplies. edit: Also would we be able to make this the general nuclear/chemical/biological weapon proliferation and policy thread? axeil fucked around with this message at 20:13 on Jan 20, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2017 20:07
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:I've never seen any credible support for the allegation that the "Samson Option" involved nuking a bunch of major countries in an attempt to destroy the world. All claims to that effect, as far as I can tell, ultimately come from one of three types of sources: writers with no real knowledge of Israel nuclear policies writing grandiose nationalistic fantasies about taking revenge on the world for a second Holocaust, anti-Semites and neo-Nazis who say it's one of the lynchpins of a Jewish conspiracy to either control or destroy the world, and conspiracy theorists who say it's one of the lynchpins of a Jewish conspiracy to either control or destroy the world. I've never seen even a trace of that description of the Samson Option in more reputable sources, which generally treat the Samson option as a standard nuclear deterrent (i.e., threatening to nuke the attacker if it looks like they're going to lose a defensive war). Apologies if it came off like that, what I meant by "nuke a bunch of countries" was "nuking the countries attacking Israel". It does appear there is some vagueness about what that entails and whether say, an occupied Israeli city would be considered a valid target.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2017 21:15
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Sorry, I guess I misinterpreted you. Usually when the Samson Option gets brought up as somehow different from regular nuclear deterrence, that's what people are talking about, and someone who just glances over the Wikipedia page might not notice the poor sourcing. Yeah I can see why it could appear like that. Most of my eyebrow raising at it is that, unlike everyone else's nuclear deterrence strategy Israel's is secret since they don't admit they have nuclear weapons, which is why you can get a lot of this telephone whispering. Also that in all the media I've seen discussing it, they never seem to know if enemy-occupied but de jure Israeli territory is a legitimate target. I mean, I would hope it isn't, but since we can't get confirmation it's a bit unnerving.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2017 22:08
|
|
|
Three-Phase posted:Nuclear EMP. China, Russia, or North Korea could do it. You can shut the entire country down with one weapon at the right altitude. It could even be in a satellite in low-earth orbit. it also has the advantage of not intentionally trying to kill anyone! i mean, loads of people would die from having no working electronics but that wouldn't be the primary purpose of the weapon. although that does raise the point, is the primary purpose of a nuclear weapon the loss of life, the terror, the denial of territory through fallout/contamination, or the destruction of infrastructure? axeil fucked around with this message at 22:35 on Jan 20, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2017 22:32
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 13:18 |
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:I feel kinda bad about the gutrumbly feel of that last post so while my knowledge of nuclear capability and game theory is spotty, here's an essay that mostly encapsulates what knowledge I do have on the subject. Get ready to limber up that scrolling finger, boyos this was a really good post. thanks for sharing all that. i live in the dc area and for a while i've been pretty sure that if a nuclear exchange happens i won't even know it because i'll already be dead. the things this article points out, namely that killing the political leadership is usually a bad idea, and that all things considered, a nuke isn't that destructive have made me reconsider that idea. Nude Bog Lurker posted:This lecture argues that the United States will have a terrific advantage in a nuclear holocaust because of the Second Amendment, which will enable the civil authority to maintain power and rebuild the Federal Government in a mere two centuries. He is a moron. is it that ridiculous? having lots of people with guns after society breaks down makes it a lot easier to rebuild society and enforce order. most people aren't monsters and won't form roving bands of gas thieves. i mean, we will still do monstrous things but they're more along the lines of "grandma doesn't get any food" than "mad max irl" Ardennes posted:It may increase the likelihood but there is a reason the Soviets always held back, everyone actually controlling the warheads themselves knew the result was certain destruction. which is an interesting point. if potus or the russian president or the chinese premier or whoever gave the order, would people actually launch the weapons? axeil fucked around with this message at 21:13 on Jan 22, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2017 21:08
|
|