Can you actually "win" a nuclear war? I thought we all understood that as foolish. Yet presently the governments of the West think such a thing is possible, otherwise they would not be poking the bear like they are.
I read somewhere this week that China removed their charter clause that "nuclear is a war that cannot be won" as a response to the U.S. potentially having capability to intercept / block their retaliatory strike.
I read a few books about that question, short answer no, long answer no.
When the enemy attacks, you have minutes to contact the president (in the us case) and he has only minutes to decide, which way it goes. You have to get your planes flying and launch your icbms before they get destroyed from the incoming missiles.
There is no time to wait and see, one of the first things that will happen is, that the enemy is detonating a nuke in the upper atmosphere near your land or near the horizon of your radars. The electromagnetic radiation blinds your radar and from now on you are blind. No radar how many missiles where launched after the initial firing.
Your have to counter strike with full force, now! Now or never, the probability is very very high that you will only have this chance, before many of the people in the chain of command are killed, nowhere to be found or incapable to act. Somewhere in the us, there will be someone in the chain of command that is authorized to act, but the person has not much to do. That will not happen in days, that will happen in hours, probably in the first 2.
The icbms will hit in the first 25-40 minutes, that planes will take hours, but think about it: the pilots and crew will deliver the bombs at any cost, because there is nothing to go home to.
Submarines will also fire a few missiles to strategic targets, but will mainly act as backup, IF you need them after the first „rodeo“.
There is also to this day no concept of ending a nuclear war. How to contact the enemy to make peace, when everything is gone. Who can you trust, who is the real person in charge.
> Can you actually "win" a nuclear war? I thought we all understood that as foolish.
There is nothing, except cost, preventing the US from building enough Aegis/Aegis Ashore/THAAD launchers to defend the entire US. The recent Iranian strike was a useful small-scale live test of the technology, but both Aegis and THAAD have been tested and worked on for long enough for the US to have reasonable confidence in them.
This is not including things like laser weapon descendants of YAL-1, or Starship deploying Brilliant Pebbles en masse into orbit, or thousands of Starshield satellites watching every inch of the planet (and/or carrying Brilliant Pebbles). They would be helpful, and possibly superior, but Aegis and THAAD are enough, in theory.
Yes, by making sure they don't hit back. The United States won a nuclear war against Japan in WW2. In theory, it's possible to intercept all the missiles from an enemy, see Iran's attack on Israel recently.
Except he doesn't have to start (or take action likely leading to) a full-scale attack in order to have a reasonable chance of drumming up a successful outcome.
For example he could set off a single low-yield high-altitude explosion to demonstrate that he "means business". And watch with delicious expectation as the Western world shits its pants.
It is unfortunately a comparatively low-risk, but sickeningly attractive proposition for him to consider -- especially if he finds himself backed into a corner with his own survival threatened (as will be the case if the war reaches a point where he is seen to be intractably failing).
throw9474|1 year ago
BonoboIO|1 year ago
When the enemy attacks, you have minutes to contact the president (in the us case) and he has only minutes to decide, which way it goes. You have to get your planes flying and launch your icbms before they get destroyed from the incoming missiles.
There is no time to wait and see, one of the first things that will happen is, that the enemy is detonating a nuke in the upper atmosphere near your land or near the horizon of your radars. The electromagnetic radiation blinds your radar and from now on you are blind. No radar how many missiles where launched after the initial firing.
Your have to counter strike with full force, now! Now or never, the probability is very very high that you will only have this chance, before many of the people in the chain of command are killed, nowhere to be found or incapable to act. Somewhere in the us, there will be someone in the chain of command that is authorized to act, but the person has not much to do. That will not happen in days, that will happen in hours, probably in the first 2.
The icbms will hit in the first 25-40 minutes, that planes will take hours, but think about it: the pilots and crew will deliver the bombs at any cost, because there is nothing to go home to.
Submarines will also fire a few missiles to strategic targets, but will mainly act as backup, IF you need them after the first „rodeo“.
There is also to this day no concept of ending a nuclear war. How to contact the enemy to make peace, when everything is gone. Who can you trust, who is the real person in charge.
In reality, the living will envy the dead.
jonwachob91|1 year ago
TMWNN|1 year ago
There is nothing, except cost, preventing the US from building enough Aegis/Aegis Ashore/THAAD launchers to defend the entire US. The recent Iranian strike was a useful small-scale live test of the technology, but both Aegis and THAAD have been tested and worked on for long enough for the US to have reasonable confidence in them.
This is not including things like laser weapon descendants of YAL-1, or Starship deploying Brilliant Pebbles en masse into orbit, or thousands of Starshield satellites watching every inch of the planet (and/or carrying Brilliant Pebbles). They would be helpful, and possibly superior, but Aegis and THAAD are enough, in theory.
unknown|1 year ago
[deleted]
temporalparts|1 year ago
jacooper|1 year ago
xboxnolifes|1 year ago
8372049|1 year ago
Helping Ukraine defend against the invaders is not "poking the bear".
racional|1 year ago
For example he could set off a single low-yield high-altitude explosion to demonstrate that he "means business". And watch with delicious expectation as the Western world shits its pants.
It is unfortunately a comparatively low-risk, but sickeningly attractive proposition for him to consider -- especially if he finds himself backed into a corner with his own survival threatened (as will be the case if the war reaches a point where he is seen to be intractably failing).