Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sergarr]

Nuclear retaliation has on the order of minutes to respond before the launch sites are non-operational. As such, nuclear weapons launches are actually on something of a hair trigger, to the point where several famous incidents in the past related to artifacts on radar and others have nearly resulted in nuclear annihilation.
Case in point: http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/the-administration/290410-the-need-to-reform-the-nuclear-weapons-launch-approval

To initiate a launch of weapons of mass destruction, it requires the approval of the National Command Authority (NCA). That’s an impressive sounding name, but the NCA consists of only two people: The President and his political appointee, the Secretary of Defense.

Congress can reject a President’s use of force, but only two months later.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Command_Authority

While the President does have unilateral authority as commander-in-chief to order that nuclear weapons be used for any reason at any time, the actual procedures and technical systems in place for authorizing the execution of a launch order requires a secondary confirmation under a two-man rule, as the President's order is subject to secondary confirmation by the Secretary of Defense. If the Secretary of Defense does not concur, then the President may in his sole discretion fire the Secretary.

It's quite interesting how the American nuclear doctrine is different from ours.

In our doctrine, instead of relying on hair-trigger launching before enemy hit, it's assumed that such thing won't actually happen, due to various reasons including the unreliability of technical warning systems causing false alarms, so the number of nuclear assets left alive after the enemy's massive first strike must therefore be enough to nuke the enemy back through their still-intact anti-missile defences. Hence, larger focus on more survivable nuclear delivery systems (like road-based launchers, strategic bombers, or submarines) and non-POTRF-based systems for transferring nuclear codes to anyone still alive.

Both, in the end, proably want good relations with Russia

That's the weirdest accusation I've seen of Hillary Clinton as of yet. Usually, people always say that she'll be too aggressive with Russia and start WW3, or that she'll at least be harder on Russia than Obama. Neither her supporters nor her detractors have entertained the idea of her being "buddy-buddy" with Russia.

Hell, that's probably the only real reason why I support her for POTUS - an unreliable "friend" like Trump is significantly more dangerous than a reliable enemy like Hillary. To say that she'll suddenly reverse her position of Russia, despite no indications to the fact, is... quite paranoid.

Yes. I mean, that's old stuff, but... the thing I'm saying that Hillary is exactly what you're saying - reliable. She isin't going to risk real confrontation with Russia because it would be retarded and might end really badly for both parties. While saying that she would be happy to sell rest of Ukraine/Poland to Putin is tinfoil, this is no way a good thing for Eastern Europe. Not to mention that most of what she's doing seems to be reffering to Syria while Ukraine gets at best mentions of "helping strenghtening Ukraine to defend itself". So, basically, she goes "we're not saying we won't help you but you're really on your own".

I'm pretty sure that the perestroyka "reset" piece of bullshit was actually Obama's idea. Clinton's foreign policy is better known here for obliterating the shit out of Gaddafi due to legalese "no-fly zone" manipulation, and angering Russia a lot in the process.

Seriously, if you've tried to claim Clinton as being "friendly to Russia" in Russia itself, you'd get laughed at. She's been dubbed as a "warhawk" here ever since 2011.

@alway: Yeah, the way it's set up, nothing short of an all out mutiny would stop a presidents orders to launch a nuke, unless the president him/herself cancel the launch. Though this is an all out barrage scenario, may play out differently for dropping one or two bombs on a target.

If at this point the idea that all-out mutiny is in order in case of nuclear war is fucking required then I am worried about humanity. Even retaliation strikes should not be done by any sane person - the enemy already fucked himself by nuking half of the world and the point should be the survival of human race, not trying to get senseless venegance on the dudes from other side of the world. The idea of the stick should be there, but the actual stick should never be used unless in really special occurences (UFO invasion, Nazis from Earth core or something).

Such policy will, ironically enough, result in much higher chances of nukes actually being used, and used successfully. If the enemy gets to nuke you without getting nuked back, they've fucking won, and won big.

And no, it'll be waaaay less than "half the world" in such situation. India, Africa and Latin America are not likely to be nuked in most scenarios which don't involve indiscriminate world depopulation due to being neutral players in NATO-Red Dragons conflict, and those already make about half of the world in population.

[sluissa]

@Sergarr It's not so much that the rest of the world would be direct targets, but they would definitely feel a large impact from so many simultaneous detonations possibly up to and including a severe global cooling/nuclear winter scenario but at the very least large amounts of fallout carried on the winds.

[PTTG??]

What I am saying in the end, this election seems to bog down to:
Hillary - LIAR, SHOULD BE IN PRISON DURR
Trump - RACIST, WILL CAUSE NUCLEAR WAR DURR
Third Party - MEME, THEY DON'T EVEN MATTER DURR (and quite truly, they don't)
No vote - VOTE YOU CUCK IT'S YOUR DUTY DURR

It's really up to you to decide what the truth is. Because at least one of these can't be true. Or at the very least, is the right option anyway.

I disagree; objective fact does exist, and it's on the side of Hillary.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

It's quite interesting how the American nuclear doctrine is different from ours.

In our doctrine, instead of relying on hair-trigger launching before enemy hit, it's assumed that such thing won't actually happen, due to various reasons including the unreliability of technical warning systems causing false alarms, so the number of nuclear assets left alive after the enemy's massive first strike must therefore be enough to nuke the enemy back through their still-intact anti-missile defences. Hence, larger focus on more survivable nuclear delivery systems (like road-based launchers, strategic bombers, or submarines) and non-POTRF-based systems for transferring nuclear codes to anyone still alive.

In fairness, the US openly has the strategic bombers and submarines. Especially the submarines. They're the super-guarantee; no nuclear strike is going to take out the sub fleet.

There's also whatever crazy orders would be given to conventional forces outside the United States should CONUS be destroyed. I have a sneaking suspicion that it's something along the lines of "terrorize everybody". The Navy could last a long time and utterly crash global trade if they went pirate.

[Kot]

What I am saying in the end, this election seems to bog down to:
Hillary - LIAR, SHOULD BE IN PRISON DURR
Trump - RACIST, WILL CAUSE NUCLEAR WAR DURR
Third Party - MEME, THEY DON'T EVEN MATTER DURR (and quite truly, they don't)
No vote - VOTE YOU CUCK IT'S YOUR DUTY DURR

It's really up to you to decide what the truth is. Because at least one of these can't be true. Or at the very least, is the right option anyway.

The problem is that in life there doesn't really have to be a good option. There is the least shit option and that's subjective.

Such policy will, ironically enough, result in much higher chances of nukes actually being used, and used successfully. If the enemy gets to nuke you without getting nuked back, they've fucking won, and won big.

They don't.
Nobody wins in that case. Mutated dogs and other Fallout/Metro fantasy aside, MAD is still the most likely way humanity goes extinct.

And no, it'll be waaaay less than "half the world" in such situation. India, Africa and Latin America are not likely to be nuked in most scenarios which don't involve indiscriminate world depopulation due to being neutral players in NATO-Red Dragons conflict, and those already make about half of the world in population.

They also lost. Nuclear winter, radiation, economy getting fucked over, starvation, so on. Humanity will proably survive this way but we'd be blown back to medieval at best.

[sluissa]

It's quite interesting how the American nuclear doctrine is different from ours.

In our doctrine, instead of relying on hair-trigger launching before enemy hit, it's assumed that such thing won't actually happen, due to various reasons including the unreliability of technical warning systems causing false alarms, so the number of nuclear assets left alive after the enemy's massive first strike must therefore be enough to nuke the enemy back through their still-intact anti-missile defences. Hence, larger focus on more survivable nuclear delivery systems (like road-based launchers, strategic bombers, or submarines) and non-POTRF-based systems for transferring nuclear codes to anyone still alive.

In fairness, the US openly has the strategic bombers and submarines. Especially the submarines. They're the super-guarantee; no nuclear strike is going to take out the sub fleet.

There's also whatever crazy orders would be given to conventional forces outside the United States should CONUS be destroyed. I have a sneaking suspicion that it's something along the lines of "terrorize everybody". The Navy could last a long time and utterly crash global trade if they went pirate.

I think you underestimate how much specific and proprietary logistical support the navy requires. You might be able to go around and pirate food and fuel. You might even be able to find some basic spare parts for some of the more off the shelf stuff. But a lot of the stuff made for the military is made specifically for the military. Nobody outside of it uses it and so there are no supply lines to steal from outside of their own. With those cut off, things start breaking down fast.

[smjjames]

It's quite interesting how the American nuclear doctrine is different from ours.

In our doctrine, instead of relying on hair-trigger launching before enemy hit, it's assumed that such thing won't actually happen, due to various reasons including the unreliability of technical warning systems causing false alarms, so the number of nuclear assets left alive after the enemy's massive first strike must therefore be enough to nuke the enemy back through their still-intact anti-missile defences. Hence, larger focus on more survivable nuclear delivery systems (like road-based launchers, strategic bombers, or submarines) and non-POTRF-based systems for transferring nuclear codes to anyone still alive.

Is that the same system since the Soviet days? Because there have been some near misses with launching on a false signal on your side, like say, getting spooked when a bear is rattling the base fence (didn't actually happen in Russia AFAIK). Yes, that actually happened here. Just saying that it isn't infallible either.

It was one of our comparatively wimpy Black bears though (to a Grizzly bear that is), not a Grizzly like you'd have in Russia.

[Max™]

Twas a math joke btw.

OH NO, I just realized when the election is over people are going full bore into holiday bullshit... we've been moving back earlier and earlier each year, I was so happy when we got past halloween without it starting and forgot it was an election year.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

It's quite interesting how the American nuclear doctrine is different from ours.

In our doctrine, instead of relying on hair-trigger launching before enemy hit, it's assumed that such thing won't actually happen, due to various reasons including the unreliability of technical warning systems causing false alarms, so the number of nuclear assets left alive after the enemy's massive first strike must therefore be enough to nuke the enemy back through their still-intact anti-missile defences. Hence, larger focus on more survivable nuclear delivery systems (like road-based launchers, strategic bombers, or submarines) and non-POTRF-based systems for transferring nuclear codes to anyone still alive.

In fairness, the US openly has the strategic bombers and submarines. Especially the submarines. They're the super-guarantee; no nuclear strike is going to take out the sub fleet.

There's also whatever crazy orders would be given to conventional forces outside the United States should CONUS be destroyed. I have a sneaking suspicion that it's something along the lines of "terrorize everybody". The Navy could last a long time and utterly crash global trade if they went pirate.

I think you underestimate how much specific and proprietary logistical support the navy requires. You might be able to go around and pirate food and fuel. You might even be able to find some basic spare parts for some of the more off the shelf stuff. But a lot of the stuff made for the military is made specifically for the military. Nobody outside of it uses it and so there are no supply lines to steal from outside of their own. With those cut off, things start breaking down fast.

I think you overestimate it. I'm not saying they'd last indefinitely. But a year at sea, killing everybody they run into? Doable. Even just that would ruin whatever remained of the world economy in a CONUS-destruction scenario.

If Somalians can wreck shit up then the Navy cut off from support can most definitely wreck all the shit up. The goal in such a crazy scenario isn't profit or survival, it's vengeance.

Now, in truth, not a lot can be realistically said about something that contains a global nuclear war as a prerequisite, but I have no doubt plans of this nature exist. The leaks on Israel's nuclear doctrine indicate they plan at the very least to nuke Berlin if they're due to be destroyed as a nation. I'm sure there are others on the target list.

Nothing says the US nuclear subs have to stop once they second strike whomever attacked the US...we don't know what would happen because it thankfully never has, but I can't even think of another goal you'd want to designate at that point than to knock the rest of humanity as far down as possible.

[Max™]

Ah, here's my favorite Riemann Zeta exploration, for those who thought the image I linked was neat looking: https://arxiv.org/pdf/math/0309433v1.pdf

It's quite interesting how the American nuclear doctrine is different from ours.

In our doctrine, instead of relying on hair-trigger launching before enemy hit, it's assumed that such thing won't actually happen, due to various reasons including the unreliability of technical warning systems causing false alarms, so the number of nuclear assets left alive after the enemy's massive first strike must therefore be enough to nuke the enemy back through their still-intact anti-missile defences. Hence, larger focus on more survivable nuclear delivery systems (like road-based launchers, strategic bombers, or submarines) and non-POTRF-based systems for transferring nuclear codes to anyone still alive.

Is that the same system since the Soviet days? Because there have been some near misses with launching on a false signal on your side, like say, getting spooked when a bear is rattling the base fence (didn't actually happen in Russia AFAIK). Yes, that actually happened here. Just saying that it isn't infallible either.

It was one of our comparatively wimpy Black bears though (to a Grizzly bear that is), not a Grizzly like you'd have in Russia.

We have Grizzly's here too, but they're all up in the Rocky area and Canadiaskatchewaniak, unlike the wussy Black Bears who the response is to charge and scream "I'M GONNA KICK YOUR ASS" at, trying that with a Grizzly just means you get eaten first.

Shame we never got the Bear Cavalry program Teddy started as the first Black Project.

[smjjames]

Ah, here's my favorite Riemann Zeta exploration, for those who thought the image I linked was neat looking: https://arxiv.org/pdf/math/0309433v1.pdf

It's quite interesting how the American nuclear doctrine is different from ours.

In our doctrine, instead of relying on hair-trigger launching before enemy hit, it's assumed that such thing won't actually happen, due to various reasons including the unreliability of technical warning systems causing false alarms, so the number of nuclear assets left alive after the enemy's massive first strike must therefore be enough to nuke the enemy back through their still-intact anti-missile defences. Hence, larger focus on more survivable nuclear delivery systems (like road-based launchers, strategic bombers, or submarines) and non-POTRF-based systems for transferring nuclear codes to anyone still alive.

Is that the same system since the Soviet days? Because there have been some near misses with launching on a false signal on your side, like say, getting spooked when a bear is rattling the base fence (didn't actually happen in Russia AFAIK). Yes, that actually happened here. Just saying that it isn't infallible either.

It was one of our comparatively wimpy Black bears though (to a Grizzly bear that is), not a Grizzly like you'd have in Russia.

We have Grizzly's here too, but they're all up in the Rocky area and Canadiaskatchewaniak, unlike the wussy Black Bears who the response is to charge and scream "I'M GONNA KICK YOUR ASS" at, trying that with a Grizzly just means you get eaten first.

Shame we never got the Bear Cavalry program Teddy started as the first Black Project.

I know we have Grizzlies, just saying it was a Black bear.

[Max™]

Yar, I'm pretty sure they have euro black bears over there too actually, but I'm not as familiar with the range.

[Kot]

An related/unrelated question.
Wasn't Clinton having some severe problems with her health? It would be quite unfortunate if newly elected president would wound up dead in few months due to respectively health problems or assasination.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Clinton had pneumonia back in September. It's such a non-thing that even Trump has stopped talking about it.

[Max™]

An related/unrelated question.
Wasn't Clinton having some severe problems with her health? It would be quite unfortunate if newly elected president would wound up dead in few months due to respectively health problems or assasination.

The saddest part is, there are many actual voters who live here and should know better that are as informed as someone in a different hemisphere.