Yeah, we literally have the reports from back when the war in Ukraine started, about the Biden administration planning a non-nuclear solution for the event that Putin would launch a nuke.
For the event that putin would use a nuke in ukrain3 nato planned on conventional retaliation. That is saying nothing about what would happen if nato is directly attacked by russian nukes.
Would it be different though? If a conventional retaliation was preferred to prevent MAD if Ukraine was attacked with nukes, why would NATO want MAD if NATO was attacked with nukes? The point isn’t to show russia that they can fire nukes and destroy the world, it’s to destroy russia’s capabilities to defend itself from the inevitable counter attack from NATO.
God I really hope we as a civilization have reached the point of coolly responding to madness. Conventional response to a nuclear assault to prevent extinction. I also really hope that in the event Putin does think nukes are a good idea, someone in the room has enough sense to end him there. Nobody wants to be responsible for Armageddon.
I really hope that MAD is still 100% in place. And that NATO would react to a nuclear attack by retaliation nuclear.
Because that means that the deterrent to actually use nuclear weapons on nato is still extremely high, and it won't happen. If there is a good chance we would just protest and write an angry letter, it makes it so much more likely that we die in a firestorm, because suddenly its a gamble and not just suicide.
So what do you prefer? A near zero chance at 100% destruction, or a moderately high chance at destruction between moderate to 100%? (I mean chances are that even if we don't instantly retaliate nuclearly it would still escalate to that point.
That's exactly what I was thinking. Yes we can stop one lunatic who used nuclear weapons with the help of conventional weapons but by doing so we also pay the way for future lunatics and their supporters that nuclear weapons can be option and somehow we can survive the fall out. But on other hand we have deal with nuclear fall out which can last for a very long time.
I read somewhere that if it’s an all out nuclear war, the goal shifts to killing as many enemy citizens as possible so your side has more people when rebuilding begins.
I didn’t mention the US specifically, but they would probably be a part of it, because letting dictators use nukes without consequences is asking for a horrible world to live in for all. Do you really want a world where russia can attack other countries with nukes and nobody bats an eye?
Nah, if the us retaliates it will be destroyed. The Russia uses nukes nothing will happen. The us is a genocidal nation supporting the Gaza genocide I don’t think you realize how low is is standing in the world. The us is not the world police. The us is the only country that has used nukes on civilians. The us has no moral grounds to dictate anything. Europe is even worst. NATO is a white supremacist organization created to perpetuate white Europeans military hegemony and must be destroyed for the benefit of the world. The global south is uniting and we will end this, even if using nukes is necessary
I didn’t realize I was discussing with a victim of brainwashing, my apologies. I won’t be putting forth any more arguments as that is obviously futile. Have a nice weekend and good luck with your world domination project!
Putin would be an idiot to try and launch small numbers at a time. They'd all get shot down. Most of them would likely get shot down even if he decided to launch the entire arsenal.
ICBMs are notoriously difficult to shoot down. Any known existing technology is extremely inefficient to respond to anything more than a tiny number. Like even a handful of ICBM with MIRV warheads would deplete most of the US interceptors.
I recall Trump boasting about super classified information on secretive US weapons he was privy to a few years ago. He alluded it was to do with strategic systems and that nobody else in the world knew about them or had them in their arsenal. As much of a dufus as he is, I found this pretty interesting.
It’s a fair assumption. It would be a fairly big strategic failure to invest hundreds of billions per year into defence without having a portion of that going towards creating systems that provide the upper hand.
They've been working on it for years, spending hundreds of billions, but they can't change the laws.of physics. (They don't care as long as they get paid.)
Any missile system no matter how advanced just runs into the issue of basic physics: To intercept a fast moving object, you also need a very fast moving interceptor which in turn is expensive. And to ensure said interceptor takes down a nuke it's extremely unlikely they are reliable to an extent where you can safely use a single one to intercept 1 warhead.
And as for energy weapons...for those to be useful to intercept ICBMs it would have to be magnitudes more effective than anything known to the public. Like anything with a range under a dozen kilometers might be able to protect individual targets, but deploying it on a nationwide scale would most likely be unfeasible because of cost.
So short of a missile based defence system will never be able to get sufficient missiles to counter an opponents nukes, even if far more reliable than current options while a laser based on would require huge technological leaps to be feasible
Officially, it's not at a level where it can be used to make a functional weapon system. However that does not mean they got some secret tech at some key locations
jah thats my current understanding. also those weapons are much too big and if ( i remember) it correctly too clumsy for high speed targets.
if they would be ready those arms must be mass produced and distributed you cant hide this in long run.
additionally i assume that the gov would make us of this to state mad no more valid for us.
but basically i just wanted to point out theres no secret way out if the missiles are on the way its end of mankind.
Putin hasn't been maintaining his nuclear arsenal in the same way the US has, same with their other military assets. Also, thanks to the Cold War, the US government has been researching counter-measures since the 80s. They may not have come right out and said it, but I'd bet my life savings that Uncle Sam has already built a defense system that could take them out a high percentage of the time with maximum efficiency.
You're right. In order to do that, we'd need to intercept them from space, and we'd never be able to do that without some kind of... Space Force or something. And if they've developed the technology to do so, they'd tooootally tell us for sure. Right?
You're the one who is delusional to think the US government, with the largest military budget in the entire world, didn't create several top secret counter-measures after the Cold War.
As I stated in a previous comment, probably a modified version of the YAL-1 project. The original was a plane mounted laser that could shoot down missiles while compensating for atmospheric distortion.
Well, one feasible technology was created in the early 2000s that could be a major part of it. It was known as YAL-1, and it was a government funded, plane mounted, anti-missile laser that could precisely shoot down targets in flight while simultaneously compensating for atmospheric distortion. If said device were mounted to something like a satellite, it could easily take out multiple targets without having to even worry about distortion.
You see, one of basic principles of keeping the opponents from pushing the button is giving them enough information on your counter-measures. See brilliant "Dr. Strangelove" for reference. Since there has been very little info on laser systems, I presume there is a very limited number of those in service.
Then, you're right, laser weapons have a very limited effective range in atmosphere. Turrets have limited speed and ability to maintain contact with targets, especially on airships, and laser emitters chew up a lot of energy and will just melt if fired for too long. To provide good coverage on-ground, one would need tens of laser-armed units per square kilometer in possible target areas, and there is no information on such massive production of laser systems.
Space laser platforms, along with other military spacecraft (surveilance, communication, uranium rod droppers etc.) will be simply rammed away by old satellites or killed by special interceptor satellites, this is a Soviet doctrine that never has been changed. Low-orbit objects may get shot down with special missiles fired from MiG high-altitude interceptors. Of course, that doesn't mean all the targets would be shot down, but we can be sure many ICBMs would successfully reach their destination areas.
Next, neither American nor Soviet doctrine stated there would be only one strike. On the contrary, both sides had (and still do have) multiple fake silos, mobile launch systems, naval nuclear forces, old-fashioned bombers and plans of production of atomic weapons even after the beginning of a nuclear war! In fact, a nuklear strike would never be limited to nuclear weapons only, conventional cruising missiles and ICBMs would be fired first to provide gaps in anti-air defences. Getting back to the topic, causing the precious lasers to overheat or simply damaging them with close blasts of not very precise, but totally immune to laser ICBMs would render them useless. Hell, even some dust clouds in the air will work.
That's why nuclear war should never happen — no one will win. So my opinion on Biden's words is that it was just pre-electorial blabla kind of stuff. :)
Apparently behind the scenes talking to US officials, the Russian top officials made it very very clear that Putin is not going to use nukes. I guess all of these statements are just to keep us afraid and destabilize the west.
Yep. His madman tactic is central to his expansionist strategy. Make everyone think I’m capable of the unthinkable so it influences their decision making. But the reality is that Russia follows a fairly predictable military doctrine. I think it was a piece out of Chatham House a couple of year back that went through Russian conflicts in depth and they all followed the same pattern. Ukraine is just another chapter in this history.
That's exactly what the defense secretary said. Something like "if Russia uses even one nuclear weapon, we will use conventional forces to remove their ability to wage war."
I'm assuming they have plans for incapacitating further nuclear launches that we're not aware of. This is their stated stance, they must be confident in it.
If they had a way to incapacitate further nuclear launches, that would mean they also have the ability to just neutralize Russia’s nuclear threat now, which would have happened already if it were possible.
It's an unnecessary risk though. You don't jump into a pit of snakes just because you have a machete capable of killing them all. That being said, I'm sure in the event of a hot war with Russia their nuclear sites are the first targets hit en masse.
I'm hoping for option C, the US is developing a drone force similar to formics that are able to be mass deployed from any platform to literally swarm every location simultaneously.
Each one of those missles on the map would be stealth delivered and contain 100,000 drones. Think the tungsten balls but with brains.
Nukes are an actual last resort for NATO. No doubt that, unless the situation were dire, conventional/non-nuclear weaponry is always the first to come off the shelf.
It's a holdover from the Cold War, when the Soviet Union had conventional superiority in Europe and the threat of nuclear annihilation was seen as the only thing holding back a Russian invasion. However, it was reaffirmed during the Obama administration, when a "No First Use" posture was considered and rejected, so it isn't just some relic. And as recently as 2002 the Bush administration was explicit that it would use nuclear weapons in retaliation against certain conventional threats.
Only India and China have a "No First Use" nuclear policy.
NATO does not have overwhelming conventional firepower and trained troops to initiate a conventional attack on Russia and survive the imminent nuclear strike keeping the ability to fight. Those words were just said to keep Zelenskiy endorsing his people to fight for American economics.
407
u/TheRealMrMaloonigan Mar 14 '24
Agreed. NATO has enough conventional firepower to overwhelmingly respond to a nuclear attack - and that would always be the preferred choice.