Is Nuclear War Inevitable?

[DogOnPorch]

2 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Tu-95 never stood a snowball's chance in hell of reaching its targets, they all would have been shot down over Canader.   Only the solid fuel quick spin up submarine launched ballistic missile delivered point blank by popping up out of the ice in Canadian waters put Orange Force in a position to threaten the Union with perish from this earth.

Russia still doesn't have a pure solid rocket booster for their (few remaining) subs. Hypergolic, still. They did manage a single successful test of the Bulava, so far. Maaaany failures.

For the most part. But, they had hundreds of Tu-95s, so a few are going to wiggle through.

[DogOnPorch]

7 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Because it's not the size of the bomb which makes the counterforce, R-36 20Mt isn't any better than other warheads for first strike, first strike is not about the bombs, its about how close you can approach by stealth and how fast you can get your shots off with as little warning as possible, en masse.

 

That's not what the 20 MT option is for. It's for holding large cities hostage. Only one has to explode over NYC to burn it all to the ground. Not just some of it.

That or cracking Cheyenne Mountain.

[Dougie93]

Exactly, which is why the MIC asserting it to be a "first strike" weapon was nonsense.   Preemptive counterforce is operational level nuclear war, R-36 was purely a countervalue weapon, which is a purely straetgic weapon never meant to be used rather simply as a doomsday deterrent so there isn't a war in the first place.

But, when MAD breaks down, then the operational level kicks off below, but at the operational level the first strike weapon was not a missile rather it was a submarine, Delta followed by Akula (Typhoon)

[Dougie93]

21 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

Russia still doesn't have a pure solid rocket booster for their (few remaining) subs. Hypergolic, still. They did manage a single successful test of the Bulava, so far. Maaaany failures.

For the most part. But, they had hundreds of Tu-95s, so a few are going to wiggle through.

Oh, the Russians can't do it, I'm talking about when the Soviets had something like 36 SSBN's and an Akula up under the ice at all times.

The Russians can still use their last remaining Akula and their Delta IV's from the ice tho, and those are all Sineva (Lainer) RSM-54's, which are proven, see; Operation Behemoth.

Edited January 14, 2019 by Dougie93

[bush_cheney2004]

2 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

Oh, the Russians can't do it, I'm talking about when the Soviets had something like 36 SSBN's and an Akula up under the ice at all times.

 

Not sure what you mean by this....the Soviets did not / could not have 36 SSBNs on alert patrol at the same time under the Arctic.   The Kola peninsula based submarine operations would have seen lots of traffic, but that includes op area transits, post overhaul/refit sea trials, training, etc.

Cold War SSBNs spent a lot of time in overhaul/refueling, refit, weapons load/unload, training, torpedo range certification, reactor operational safety exams, etc.   The Soviets may have cut corners, but some things cannot be ignored for long or there will be sea water in the people tank.

Strategic arms talks/treaties also limited the number of submarines and launch tubes on alert at any one time.

Edited January 14, 2019 by bush_cheney2004

[Dougie93]

But that's what I mean, 36 SSBN's total only equals about 9 available at any moment, with surge capability for shorter windows.

[Dougie93]

Ergo, as Russia only has about 9 or so right now, that's only 2-3 available at any moment, and so not enough for a counterforce.

[Dougie93]

Bear in mind I'm not sitting here in expectation of a Russian counterforce, the only state which has even a chance of building a counterforce option with legs is UKUSSA, the Russians can't afford it.

I am in agreement with y'all about 5th generation asymmetrical non state vector, I simply follow that to its logical conclusion of lateral escalation plausibly into an autonomous cycle of violence all the way to insensate spasm.

[DogOnPorch]

Beer and pretzels back in the day...still in print!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_War_(card_game)

[Dougie93]

So DIA has just released a report justifying the American withdraw from INF 87'.

It's actually 'China has become the world leader in INF's" and not actually "Ivan did it first!" after all.

[DogOnPorch]

It makes less sense for the USA to be in such a treaty with various non-signatory nations...potential foes...busy doing their own thing in terms of ballistic missile development. 

Russia is no doubt well aware of this. And it's true that they've been busy developing new launch systems and missiles that are pushing it in terms of the treaty, anyways. Topol M, MR, etc.

As for the treaty, it mainly decommissioned older ballistic missiles that weren't much use anyways. The US hasn't been that keen on large theater/battlefield missiles since Pershing, either.

Edited January 18, 2019 by DogOnPorch

[bush_cheney2004]

8 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

....As for the treaty, it mainly decommissioned older ballistic missiles that weren't much use anyways. The US hasn't been that keen on large theater/battlefield missiles since Pershing, either.

 

Agreed...a lot of people don't understand that strategic arms treaties are also an opportunity to modernize aging missiles and warheads, improving reliability, and CEP accuracy.

Treaties also permit inspections, launcher conversions to cruise missiles, and manned bombers.

The replacement American SSBN Columbia class is already being designed to begin building next decade, and trillions (with a "T") dollars are planned for total nuclear weapons program modernization over the next 30 years.

[Dougie93]

Nuclear weapons modernization is not optional so long as we are launch on warning.

The reason for America to adhere to INF 87' was that it didn't cover submarine launched, but now the Russians are deploying so much SLCM's the edge it imparted to America is less significant.

In terms of INF's over the trace in the Baltic and Black, if you're going to go BMD, then you're into de facto counterforce, so need to go all the way with the INF's and LRTNF's

[DogOnPorch]

1 minute ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Agreed...a lot of people don't understand that strategic arms treaties are also an opportunity to modernize aging missiles and warheads, improving reliability, and CEP accuracy.

Treaties also permit inspections, launcher conversions to cruise missiles, and manned bombers.

The replacement American SSBN Columbia class is already being designed to begin building next decade, and trillions (with a "T") dollars are planned for total nuclear weapons program modernization over the next 30 years.

 

The US Submarine fleet is the big T in the Triad. Unlike the Sovi...Russians...you can actually launch a ballistic missile from underwater in relative safety....very well, I might add...since the 1960s.

But not to belittle the Russians. They found other methods to be dangerous. Cruise missiles, mobile launchers, large numbers of decoys, etc. But, frankly, weapons like the R-36 are only effective as long as US technology isn't permitted to counter it. They knew they were pushing SALT and START and probably a few others pursuing that line of development

 

[DogOnPorch]

Somebody gets some more elbow room in his bunk.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia-class_submarine

Each submarine will have 16 missile tubes, each carrying one Trident II D5LE missile. The submarines will be 560 feet (170.7 m) long and 43 feet (13.1 m) in diameter, as long as the Ohio-class design, and one foot larger in diameter.

[Dougie93]

The Sovi. . . Russians reconfigued their submarine CONOPS to under ice and then pop up through and fire from the surface without warning, negating the need to hover at launch depth, while escaping the detection of SOSUS under the ice.

[DogOnPorch]

10 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

The Sovi. . . Russians reconfigued their submarine CONOPS to under ice and then pop up through and fire from the surface without warning, negating the need to hover at launch depth, while escaping the detection of SOSUS under the ice.

 

Delta IVs and Typhoons, perhaps.

But the Borei Class are meant for operations closer to the equator. They're pretty lightweight next to the older rigs. Plus I'm not convinced the conning tower isn't composites...doesn't look like an ice-cracker. 

Edited January 18, 2019 by DogOnPorch

[Dougie93]

Agreed on apparent Borei CONOPS, but they don't need Borei to reduce the CONUS tens times over so Borei whatever the status,  is not the point.

[Dougie93]

Moreover I tend not to underestimate Ivan in terms of him figuring things out in the end, so I don't file Borei/Bulava under total failure non effective for all time.

Mostly they're trying to be all things to all people, they need to get rid of some stuff in order to keep the more effective and important stuff, and then double down on that.

It's an asymmetrical confrontation, they don't need to be a carbon copy of Western forces,  they just need to be good at nukes and fighting for the Near Abroad.

Edited January 18, 2019 by Dougie93

[Dougie93]

For instance they don't need aircraft carriers at all, that's a vanity project, and they don't need cruisers to fight American carrier strike groups because American carrier strike groups can be engaged by more adaptive and dispersed means, so those are vanity projects too.

[Iznogoud]

Nuclear weapons have to be one of the most useless weapons ever invented.  They can only be used if the other side doesn't have any; and any such use would result in a massive worldwide backlash and probably complete rejection of any government that used them from its own population.  As an example there are many who actually believe that Japan was the victimized nation in World War II despite immense evidence to the contrary.  Not only that, but in an all out nuclear war both sides would be completely destroyed. 

[DogOnPorch]

1 hour ago, Iznogoud said:

Nuclear weapons have to be one of the most useless weapons ever invented.  They can only be used if the other side doesn't have any; and any such use would result in a massive worldwide backlash and probably complete rejection of any government that used them from its own population.  As an example there are many who actually believe that Japan was the victimized nation in World War II despite immense evidence to the contrary.  Not only that, but in an all out nuclear war both sides would be completely destroyed. 

 

The question isn't really 'are nuclear weapons good'. 

As for Japan being innocent, they started the war. They were also guilty of very heinous war crimes that I doubt you're aware of.

Here's a minor example that was repeated many times across the Pacific & Indian oceans...

https://www.armed-guard.com/ag87.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_submarine_I-8

 

 

[bush_cheney2004]

6 hours ago, Iznogoud said:

.... Not only that, but in an all out nuclear war both sides would be completely destroyed. 

 

Ergo, that's why nuclear weapons will continue to exist...to prevent exactly that.

[Dougie93]

9 hours ago, Iznogoud said:

Nuclear weapons have to be one of the most useless weapons ever invented.  They can only be used if the other side doesn't have any; and any such use would result in a massive worldwide backlash and probably complete rejection of any government that used them from its own population.  As an example there are many who actually believe that Japan was the victimized nation in World War II despite immense evidence to the contrary.  Not only that, but in an all out nuclear war both sides would be completely destroyed. 

Not actually the case, there are strategic weapons, there are intermediate weapons,  and there are tactical weapons, you've simply conflated countervalue strategic with nuclear weapons writ large.

You're also viewing an illusion projected by the pax Americana, making it seem like interstate wars have gone away forever and war is imperial policing and nothing else, but really that's just King Dollah paying everybody to get along.

Edited January 20, 2019 by Dougie93

[Dougie93]

Also, there are nuclear wars going on all the time, they just don't escalate to an exchange, but an exchange is actually the end of a nuclear war not the beginning, all the maneuver phases occur prior to exchange, which usually solve the problem before it escalates to an exchange.