undefined | Better HN

0 pointsmonocasa2mo ago0 comments

> What are you basing this on? Even back when warheads were strictly ballistic we couldn't do that. Russia's arsenal, today, contains maneuverable warheads.

> Flip it around: if we committed to a first strike on Russia and China, is there a world in which we wouldn't say it's to glass North Korea?

Because while you can't tell how far a missile is going to go, you can tell how far it has gone. We're more than capable of tracking that a missile has gone past what would make sense for a Russian strike on Ukraine.

And you'd be able to tell if a launch made sense to attack NK from the US or not. Orbital mechanics and the burn patterns of ICBMs don't really let you redirect at the last minute, and the trajectory wouldn't really make sense.

> This is not how strategic nuclear exchanges are ever modeled. Because it's now how strategic war plans are ever written.

> Use it or lose it. Silo-based missiles are sitting ducks. By the time nukes are landing in Ukraine they could be landing across a good chunk of Europe and Turkey.

Europe and Turkey have no silo based weapons left. It's all either airborne or submarine delivery these days.

In this scenario the weapons are all already in the air, or on submarines where they've been as safe as they always are.

> I'm not saying India will nuke Russia. I'm saying India and China would both exact a price from Russia for normalizing nuclear war in the modern context. This has been repeatedly messaged by both in respect of the Ukraine invasion.

Once again, the context here is a Ukrainian nuclear (even if tactical) first strike, and the subsequent Russian retaliation. "Punitive" retaliation is all of their strategy. This has already been normalized. Which is why a "tactical" nuclear strike would never make sense.

0 comments

JumpCrisscross2mo ago

> you can tell how far it has gone. We're more than capable of tracking that a missile has gone past what would make sense for a Russian strike on Ukraine

Generally speaking, a bunch of Russian silos lighting up would put us at DEFCON 1. We’re not waiting until it passes Ukraine. It we want to engage any boost-phase ABM, we’re not going to let it. (Which leads to its own issues.)

> you'd be able to tell if a launch made sense to attack NK from the US or not

At some point. But waiting will cost you precious minutes, and you don’t know what else is in position e.g. off your coast.

> Europe and Turkey have no silo based weapons left

I was unclear. I meant conventional forces that would be targets in a first strike.

> "Punitive" retaliation is all of their strategy. This has already been normalized

Strategic retaliation for tactical nukes has not been normalized. This is still entirely ambiguous and hotly debated.

Again, flip it around. If you knew China and Russia would stand down if they thought you were just nuking North Korea, you could use that to gain material advantage in a first strike.

monocasaOP2mo ago

> Generally speaking, a bunch of Russian silos lighting up would put us at DEFCON 1. We’re not waiting until it passes Ukraine. It we want to engage any boost-phase ABM, we’re not going to let it. (Which leads to its own issues.)

I already said they'd be at DEFCON 1.

> At some point. But waiting will cost you precious minutes, and you don’t know what else is in position e.g. off your coast.

Waiting might also keep you out of a nuclear war. They know exactly how long they can wait.

> I was unclear. I meant conventional forces that would be targets in a first strike.

Convential forces are inconsequential wrt a full nuclear strike.

> Strategic retaliation for tactical nukes has not been normalized. This is still entirely ambiguous and hotly debated.

I already quoted you the exact policy from one of your examples.

> Again, flip it around. If you knew China and Russia would stand down if they thought you were just nuking North Korea, you could use that to gain material advantage in a first strike.

If you were retaliating because NK had already set off a tactical nuke in your territory? Once again, the orbital mechanics don't work like that. Looking at it, the only thing you could hit from US silos launched so that they look like they're hitting North Korea would maybe be Hong Kong. Which once those missiles go past North Korea, China is already considering it a first strike and retaliating, so you didn't really gain anything.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse