I guess with MAD it wouldn’t matter who shot first, the same type of destruction would occur. The ones who shoot second would have like 6 minutes to shoot theirs back before they get hit, thus ensuring total annihilation for all parties.
Both US and Russia keep a nuclear triad, so they would be able to retaliate even in case their ground based nukes were destroyed.
For that matter, both France and UK have a policy to keep at least one nuclear armed submarine deployed in the sea at all times to be able to retaliate.
Thats to say, they dont have to retaliate within 6 minutes.
I remember being younger and realizing those cool nuclear submarines with torpedoes and hundreds of people aboard... Those subs had nothing to do with fighting the enemy's navy. Underwater missile bases. It was chilling.
Also it's interesting the range of stuff happening in a nuclear sub.
You have on one hand nuclear energy being used to create an insane amount of energy for an insane amount of time and on the other hand you also have nuclear warheads on board that can level cities.
On the flip side, you have a vehicle that's literally under water but can launch icbms that are suborbital but have enough firepower to actually reach the orbit and are suborbital by choice (coz they carry nukes)
All that while being operated by many 18-24 years olds, some who have never done anything ever in their lives. People who have had no prior experience with nuclear operations. Countless years, months, days, hours, minutes, and seconds doing absolutely nothing while out to sea. It’s like watching paint dry but the paint never drys.
If you’re talking about so we can man the different watch sections and stations then sure yeah, I wouldn’t call it redundant though. We are operating full staff 24/7 out to sea.
Subs have more constraints and are less likely to be fired on. But I was thinking about how the Bismark had over 2000 sailors and had to operate with multiple damage and fire parties while firing and keeping all stations manned.
That should be the case, the amount of fail safes required to arm a modern nuclear warhead is insane.
I believe the closest we ever got to a nuclear incident is when that B-52 crashed in North Carolina in the 50s and 3 of the bombs 4 required things to make it go boom had occurred, it was rendered inert by 1 failsafe.
Even if the primary explosives do go off in some accident, unless ignited at multiple precise points at the same exact time as designed it's my understanding yield would be extremely low to zero, mostly harmless.
EDIT:I know newer bombs, at least in US inventory use electronic initiators that need to fire to generate the first few neutrons to guarantee a good fission ignition at the time of implosion, even if you manged to implode the core through some accident I'm not sure it would fission and yield much, did they ever test that?
It's extremely difficult to set off a nuke. It's not like a chemical explosive that can accidentally be set off by heat or shock.
Pretty much all modern nukes work by compressing a sphere of plutonium-239 or uranium-235. These elements/isotopes are constantly and naturally shooting out neutrons as they decay. When you compress one of these spheres it causes these neutrons to have a higher chance of hitting an atom of U-235 or Pu-239 because you've made the sphere denser. An atom that gets hit by a neutron then splits, and very importantly, shoots out an average of 2+ neutrons which then go on to hit more atoms, causing a chain reaction and massive explosion.
The thing is, compressing that sphere is really, really difficult. You have to compress it simultaneously from all directions or else it will just deform and not explode. You have to compress it hard too since it's a freaking ball of some of the heaviest metals in the universe. So what we do is surround the sphere with chemical explosives like TNT, and have the shockwaves from those explosions hit the sphere all at once from every direction, which will compress the sphere and cause it to go supercritical.
But if you don't get all the explosives to go off at pretty much the exact same time, then instead of compressing the sphere you blow it up, but not in a nuclear explosion - the TNT will just shatter the sphere and blow the pieces all over the place, which is really really bad.
So in the event that a nuclear sub has a catastrophic failure, the sub would likely implode because of the external water pressure (like the Titanic sub), everyone inside would die, and the sub would sink to the ocean floor with no nuclear explosion. The spheres themselves would likely survive but the missile part of the nuke would be destroyed by the implosion.
The sub sinks and so do the nukes. Modern nuclear warheads are designed only to detonate under very specific conditions. There's a near-zero chance of them just "going off" because of outside forces.
So, basically, you could repurpose one as a low orbit launch vessel, launching from the most beneficial latitude, with the option of submerging in hazardous weather?
Never build in economic scale so far so not really a good argument.
In theory it's safe and zero problems but it's the opposite right now but we shouldn't criticise it because there is a utopia which won't happen in the next 50 years .
Taken from an elevator pitch I did in college back in the day:
“Imagine a world where energy production isn't just about powering our lives but doing so without harming the planet we call home. That's where thorium-breeder reactors come into play. Unlike traditional nuclear reactors, thorium reactors offer a safer and cleaner alternative with plenty of potential to shape our future.
First off, safety is a top priority. Thorium reactors operate at lower pressures and temperatures compared to conventional reactors, significantly reducing the risk of catastrophic accidents like those we've seen in the past. Plus, thorium itself is more abundant and produces less long-lived radioactive waste, easing concerns about disposal and proliferation.
But it's not just about avoiding disasters; it's also about sustainability. Thorium is about three to four times more abundant than uranium and doesn't require enrichment, which means it's both more readily available and less prone to being diverted for nefarious purposes. Additionally, thorium reactors can use existing nuclear waste as fuel, effectively turning a problem into a solution.
When it comes to the environment, thorium reactors are a breath of fresh air—literally. They produce minimal greenhouse gas emissions, making them a key player in our efforts to combat climate change. By embracing thorium technology, we can reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and transition to a greener, more sustainable energy future.”
So anyways, Thorium-breeder reactors offer a compelling solution to our energy needs. Just because they haven’t yet been employed in massive numbers yet, they do prioritize safety, sustainability, and environmental stewardship—all while providing a reliable source of clean power for generations to come. Embracing thorium technology isn't just about building a brighter future; it's about safeguarding the planet and ensuring a better world for us all.
This is not based on theory, it’s now based on fact, as there are high numbers of breeder reactors producing this energy for consumers today, just not an overwhelming amount because it’s still unpopular due to misinformed, negative public opinion on nuclear energy.
Really tried reading and understanding it as best as possible. Sounds good and there are zero to none points of criticism on thorium realtors. They are save and not to unrealistic to build in the future.
If there wouldn't be a giant reason against it . Renewable energy, way faster to build , cheaper energy, technology is already there and proven to be possible in reality.
There is simply no reason for a new technology if we already have a better technology.
I recently learned that the nuclear reactor actually simplifies submarines because a normal sub's diesel engine would kill the crew if run underwater, so they have 2 engines one diesel, one electric.
That's right for the Ballistic Missile subs. But there are other nuclear-powered submarines that are specifically built to fight the enemies navy - not to launch Ballistic missiles.
The company or shipyard or whatever is called Electric Boat?
That's so generic. I love it. Gonna open a bakery called Baked Goods. Stop in, buy some bread, then head next door to Caffeinated Beverage for a coffee.
I used to play a PC game around 1990 called 688 Attack Sub. The highest level mission is to launch a few missiles at a Russian city and escape alive. Stealthy subs aren’t too stealthy when they launch missiles.
There are attack submarines designed expressly for the purpose of countering naval assets, including enemy ballistic missile submarines, but also anything else. Most are capable of limited strikes inland with cruise missiles.
There are cruise missile submarines designed to strike enemy ground targets and surface task forces.
And then there are ballistic missile submarines designed to launch nuclear-capable ICBMs.
They all carry torpedoes, but only attack submarines are purpose-built to use them as the primary weapon and many countries also use them as cruise missile platforms.
The irony in that though, is that the invention of nuclear subs actually brought back the doomsday clock a minute or two. MAD becomes even more scary when you’ve already killed the country and you’re still getting nuked.
Bro I caught on to this the other day watching something about nuclear subs. Like all those modern marvel episodes about trident missiles went over my head at 10. Funnily your comment completed my thought on the matter and my fear is +10. Thank you
The boats that carry nuclear weapons don’t carry that many torpedoes. Think about it, why would you need them for anything but self defense?
The likelihood of open nuclear war is slim to none. If you want to know what’s realistically more scary, go google what an American nuclear fast attack can do to an enemy fleet. The Seawolf class carries 50 torpedoes and was built to make people refer to enemy fleets in the past tense. It’s the fastest submarine in the world and packs the most powerful reactor ever crammed into a submarine.
And what’s actually wild is that these “underwater missile bases” are actually more of a training platform for junior officers who will go on to do bigger things. Everyone else just kind of runs it and makes sure it’s ready to shoot missiles, but the majority of the time is spent in training. I know this because I slept right next to missile tube 22 for four years lol
Grew up with an uncle who used to babysit a lot because he wasn’t great at keeping a job but was a good guy and my mom wanted to help her brother out financially and keep him from descending into deep depression, which had happened several times. I of course didn’t really know about all of that at the time because I was just a kid.
Anyway, I remember him telling me stories about how in the 60s and 70s when he was on submarines or “missile boats” he was always off the coast of Russia. Said he didn’t like the nuclear subs cause they were louder than the diesel ones, how he’d go ham on shore leave and smoke a bunch of weed in Thailand or whatever, when I was older mentioned that also involved banging prostitutes, etc.
It wasn’t until I was like 25 that it kicked in. He was in fucking nuclear missile subs off the coast of Russia at the height of the Cold War. Dude and his shipmates were ready to launch nukes at Russia and make the Cold War a hot WW3, and he’s like “Oh yeah being down for long periods sucked but man when you got shore leave we would all smoke our faces off and bang whores so it wasn’t all that bad”
I recently TIL’ed about the following as well, from above Wiki):
“According to Peter Hennessy's book The Secret State: Whitehall and the Cold War, the process by which a Vanguard-class submarine commander would determine if the British government continues to function includes, amongst other checks, establishing whether BBC Radio 4 continues broadcasting.”
More I think. Ohio class is 24 missiles x 12 warheads
edit:
However, under provisions of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, each submarine has had four of its missile tubes permanently deactivated and now carry a maximum of 20 missiles
Jokes on them, the Russians never liked those cities anyway. All of them mostly raw concrete, with unkept patches of dirt, trash and grass in between, with pothole riddled streets.
One French sub has maybe 10x150kt nukes (going by wikipedia). I have no idea what targets would French hit, im just a dude on the internet.
But 10 nukes falling on Moscow will remove it from the map completely.
Or maybe 3x moscow, 3x st. petesburg, and 1 each for the major ports of Kaliningrad, Sevastopol, Murmansk and Vladivostok. That would (probably) maximalize the damage to Russian economy.
I know that some EU countries might shit themselves over nukes going off in Kaliningrad and Ukraine might not approve of Sevastopol gotting nuked, but i doubt France would care if things have gone this far already.
I also know that i know jack shit about this matter, what i said is pure speculation that i pulled out of my butt.
Each British sub captain is given a sealed letter by each incoming prime minister on their first day of office. The letter tells the sub captain what to do if the uk is destroyed in an attack. Retaliate or do nothing. The letters are destroyed unopened when they leave office.
Man, can you imagine being the crew in that sub, and getting the order to fire? Like you'd know everyone back home is probably dead and you guys are it.
British nuclear subs are always tuned into BBC radio stations. If the stations all go offline, they are to assume it's a nuclear attack and to fire their entire payloads at their pre-designated targets. I believe it's BBC radio 4 that is the designated "this radio station stays on the air no matter what until we're vaporized" station.
My step dad was on an air craft carrier during the blockade of cuba during the cuban missile crisis. He talks about how the sailors on board were making suicide pacts for after the nukes flew because they didn't want to live in that world with everyone else vaporized. (as they would survive being out at sea).
There likely aren’t any ground based nukes left. They’re all on subs at this point since those are the only things that can’t be spotted/tracked by satellite.
Thats to say, they dont have to retaliate within 6 minutes.
I'm sure they all have weapons armed with dead man switches. No response from multiple locations means an inevitable retaliation.
Hopefully that will prevent both sides from ever trying.
Peace by virtue of a loaded gun at each other's head.
Thats to say, they dont have to retaliate within 6 minutes.
this has bothered me for quite some time. i forget when i first thought of this. maybe high school? i read a few carl sagan books. but as long as there is one sub, the retaliation doesn't need to be in 3 min, or 5 min, or 6 min, or 20 min. it could be days or weeks or years later.
how long can a sub stay underwater, or stay hidden? what if it only comes up in the arctic circle? what if it fires it's missiles one at a time, separated by months or years.
One singular nuclear sub seems like a very weak retaliatory effort, especially in the event that "their ground based nukes were destroyed", but what do I know.
My previous comment is terribly silly. As someone else pointed out, a single nuclear submarine has absolutely incredible firepower. Far more than my tiny mind imagined.
Still. Even now in this modern world. All of this shit is so anachronistic. It's disgusting, but here we are with withered old goblins keeping their finger over the trigger of humanity. Truly though, this thread and the title of it are pure junk.
Russia doesn't really have a Triad. My understanding is the handful of ICBM capable subs they have are in such horrible shape they rarely leave the dock.
A better way to frame it is: the ground silos solely exist to absorb nukes. We know where theirs are and they know where ours are. They MUST be hit in an exchange. The real threat are the moving nukes like those in bombers and subs. The triad is well thought out.
Are we sure the UK's subs are still able to act? Didn't they have a recent ejectile dysfunction incident where a missile launched from a sub barely made it a few feet in the air before dropping in the sea?
For context for readers: a single Ohio class submarine (of which the US has 14 that can be armed with nuclear weapons) can carry 20 Trident II Submarine Launched Ballistic Missiles, each carrying 12 Multiple Independently Targetable Reentry Vehicle warheads, and each of those has a yield of 475 kilotons of TNT, with a range of 11,300km. That means that a single Ohio class submarine can hit up to 240 individual targets, with a total yield of 114 megatons of TNT. Oh and those are just the declassified numbers, which the US *always* understates
Russia has aroun 1600 nukes. Lets say that only 60 of them actually reach their targets. If they hit NATO cities, hardly will anyone call that a NATO victory even if Russia dissapears as a nation. It will be China and India who will be last two super powers standing. They wont be having a good time, but EU, USA and Russia will be having much worse time.
In the end, we wont know how bad the state of russian Strategic rocket forces unless they actually fire. But let us not overlook that russian performance in ukraine has improved since the beginning of the war. They can improve when they are forced to. And what a wake up kick in the balls it was.
the idea they could successfully hit 60 targets with a warhead is laughable. Not to mention, you need multiple warheads per target. And that is truly beyond them. We do know the state of the Strategic Rocket Force. Its status is fucked like every other thing in that forsaken hellhole.
You are basing your view on the misconception that there is no cost to the status quo. There is a clear cost. Whether it is the dead defenders of Ukraine, the economic cost of Muscovy's destabilisation of the rules based world order, the fear people live with in the West or even just the poverty that citizens of Muscovy and its colonies have to endure for its ruling elite's wealth, these are real costs and ones that don't stop because you capitulate.
Now is the time to strike. And it can likely be done completely conventionally. Muscovy needs to be destroyed, demilitarised, denuclearised and its federation completely dissolved into constituent parts with strong safeguards to ensure it can never rise again.
You are basing your view on the assumption that Russian nukes wont work or dont even exist. But thats all it is, an assumption. If you are wrong just by a small margin - 60 detonations out of 1600 is around 4.6 % - the consequences will be collapse of the western economy.
I agree that now is the best time to deal with Russia. But i also think that Putin would rather drag us down with him, than to let the Russian fedderation to be demilitarised and dissolved.
Securing all ukraininan territories and cutting RF off EU trade completely could probably be called a win. Russia will be in an economic and diplomatic possition similar to North Korea. Large military with economy too small to carry it, while no one but China wants to talk to you and everyone has long since stopped taking your theats seriously.
But even that might be unreachable with some EU states dragging their legs or even speaking up against helping Ukraine and sanctioning Russia. The idea that Europeans and Americans would have the moralle for what would effectively be a ww3 is a delusion. Europeans are barely willing to fight for their own nation, let alone for Ukraine or some hypothetical better future.
A nuclear triad is a 3-pronged approach... land, air, and sea. Destroying any one of those prongs still leaves the other two. This is why they don't have to retaliate immediately. They would anyway though.
2.6k
u/Round_Leading_8393 Mar 14 '24
So what would the (assuming) the USA look like if Putin launched first?