Mutual Assured Destruction is an obsolete conception. In the case of a smart, well calculated Pearl-Harbour counter-force strike attacker can win a war, suffering relatively low losses (tens of millions killed) or even have a chance to coerce his opponent in the mutually acceptable, but attacker-prefered peace without the retaliation at all.
I could see that support for Ukraine ran about 4 to1 on this board
- Thread starter longly
- Start date
We have fleets of nuclear armed submarines constantly at sea just for the purpose of making Russia (or anyone) pay for a surprise strike.
Russia does as well.
Even France has a substantial nuclear submarine fleet that is large enough to collapse Russian or American society if they unleashed it
No one could possibly win a nuclear war, which is why it will never happen
fncceo
Diamond Member
- Nov 29, 2016
- 45,039
- 38,678
- 3,615
My grandchildren are neither Ukranians nor Russians ... they haven't even been Europeans for over 100 years.
It has zero to do with their futures.
fncceo
Diamond Member
- Nov 29, 2016
- 45,039
- 38,678
- 3,615
Yes but even a good movie is just a movie
fncceo
Diamond Member
- Nov 29, 2016
- 45,039
- 38,678
- 3,615
We've been wetting our collective panties about the potential catastrophe from using nuclear weapons for nearly 80 years now ... but it's all speculation. We haven't a single mutant ant or 50-foot woman to show for our efforts.
The only fact we have is this ... the application of two (very small) nuclear weapons turned the most fanatically suicidal enemy the world has ever faced into democracy-loving pacifists virtually overnight.
As weapons of war go -- they have to be the most efficient, productive weapons for the imposition of peace ever created by hand of man.
The only fact we have is this ... the application of two (very small) nuclear weapons turned the most fanatically suicidal enemy the world has ever faced into democracy-loving pacifists virtually overnight.
As weapons of war go -- they have to be the most efficient, productive weapons for the imposition of peace ever created by hand of man.
Like, say, two SSBNs in Atlantic, twenty missiles each. If they bear 3 warheads each, it makes 60 warheads in one SSBNs salvo. Moscow's ABD can easily intercept 100 incoming warheads. 120 incoming warheads, of course, will be gambling, but for the total destruction of Moscow one needs roughly 50 100kt warheards (like typical W76-1 warheads). If the Russians attack first, and their attack is well planned, it means, that they already have half of Moscow's population evacuted and another half - sheltered. It makes that the losses will be counted in tens, may be hundreds of thousands, but will be pretty acceptable.
If the Russians, as a jesture of goodwill, after their first counter-force strike (with minimal collateral damage), suggest "humanitarian pause" without attacks against cities (to evacuate civilians) and thinking about rather generous Russian peace terms (the USA are returning Russia Alaska and California, but still survive as an independent state), there are pretty good chances that the USA won't retaliate at all.
Retaliation strike may cause significant, or even terrible losses, but will they be acceptable or unacceptable (in the current circumstances) depends on the possible alternatives.
The launch of a singe SSBN won't cause neither Russian, nor American society. Vice versa, it may cause consolidation of the survivals under the flag.
It depends on the definition of victory, but any war can be won. The question is that some strategies can be risky, and some strategies may be very expensive in the terms of human lifes. And in some situations Russia (or America) can decide that further appeasement is more dangerous than a nuclear war. And if the nuclear war is inevitable - then a first counter force strike is definitely safer than the second one (which, likely, might become suicidal).
Makes me think of the end of the novel Alas, Babylon
"We won it. We really clobbered 'em!" Hart's eyes lowered and his arms drooped. He said, "Not that it matters."
Yes. I prefer books, too. Like, say, Herman Kahn with his "On Thermonuclear War". Ever read it?
Very nice and educative book. Or, from something more recent - Russian "From Deterrence to Intimidation. Nuclear weapons, geopolitic, coalition strategies".
- Apr 11, 2023
- 43,361
- 21,156
- 2,488
MAD has worked for 76 years. QNuts like Zavulon continue the Putina rote denial.
No. It wasn't about "Mutual Assured Destruction". It was about ability to cause "unacceptable damage by retaliation strike" and about art of not being too provocative.
If you are too provocative, your opponent may decide to play Russian roulette (six chambers, one cartrige) and then you'll decide to play American roulette (six chambers, five cartriges) or not to play.
- Apr 11, 2023
- 43,361
- 21,156
- 2,488
MAD works.
justoffal
Diamond Member
- Jun 29, 2013
- 33,552
- 26,276
- 2,905
I have a solution! Allow Ukraine to set up recruiting stations at key points in the US and make them very accessible. You will see him miraculous shift in the support factor.
Attack? Who? He can't even beat Ukraine.
- Apr 11, 2023
- 43,361
- 21,156
- 2,488
He will when Ukraine is out of munitions.
That's why Europe is learning to say 'no' to Putin.
As if Europe can't run out of ammunition.
- Apr 11, 2023
- 43,361
- 21,156
- 2,488
Western Europe can outgun and out produce Russia within six months.
Putin won't attack when they begin, much less when they complete their first goals.
Putin won't attack when they begin, much less when they complete their first goals.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Watch and react to polls or commit to the long-term mission?- Started by BrokeLoser
- Replies: 1
-
Jack Posobiec confronts Jamie Raskin, gets ASSAULTED by Democrat union workers at Union Station- Started by DonGlock26
- Replies: 16
-
-
Native American woman gets a chance to topple Hogg at DNC
- Started by DonGlock26
- Replies: 11
Latest Discussions
-
Watch and react to polls or commit to the long-term mission?- Latest: John Edgar Slow Horses
-
Canadian Election Results and Fallout: Between the Numbers
- Latest: John Edgar Slow Horses
-
-
