US Nuclear Guarantees to Allies

[HeyYou]

MAD is a concept that is all sword and no shield, tactically and strategically it is as appealing as appeasement to any rational military thinker. As much as it is derided a land, space and sea interception method of incoming missiles is the only real surety, to say that it is currently not tactically viable should just be a spur to make it a concrete reality instead of what it currently is. Our danger is not our conventional foes but newer states that have less scruples about the concept of the use of nuclear weapons.

 

Ronnie Reagan tried that. Star Wars. That didn't go over so well. Granted, the technology for such a system just wasn't the best at the time. (not to mention several treaties that specifically prohibit anti-missile defense systems.)

 

The problem with putting such a system in place is, your enemies, with their billions of dollars invested in their nuclear arsenal, aren't going to take real kindly to your putting up something that negates their billions of dollars.... and rather then have it reduced to so much scrap, with an extremely high overhead, they would be sore tempted to use it, while they still could..... The mere act of trying to set up a missile shield, may prompt the behavior you are attempting to defend against.

[Jopo1980]

Let´s not go off topic shall we? The discussion was not about MAD or Star Wars, but the Diplomatic guarantee that the US extends to its non-nuclear allies, to retaliate an attack upon them with its own arsenal, negating these countries need for an arsenal of their own. Such countries include Australia, Germany, Turkey, Greece, Spain, Italy etc. So, under these guarantees, if Berlin or Rome gets nuked, the US will have to respond with its own arsenal and risk a retaliatory strike on American cities. Do you think such guarantees should exist or would you prefer for example that every one of these guaranteed countries go nuclear and build their own arsenal instead?

 

As for nuclear doctrines, one development during the Cold War was the replacement of the doctrine of Massive Retaliation with the doctrine of Measured Response, where the nuclear powers would exchange nuke for nuke, one warhead for another, instead of launching all of their nukes at once as a retaliation. So a destruction of a city would be retaliated by destroying a comparable city in the other state etc.

 

And as for missile defense systems, current technology does not allow for a comprehensive missile defense. Modern Surface to Air missiles (SAMs) and lasers can perhaps destroy one or two incoming warheads, enough to repel a limited strike, such as one launched by a rogue nation, but NOT a massive strike of thousands of manouverable independently targetable warheads mixed with decoys to make defending even more difficult as you have to shoot down every last one including the decoys, just to make sure nothing gets through, as might be launched by a major nuclear power. No, defending against an all out nuclear strike remains a pipe dream even with current technology, that doesn´t stop the US from investing in research on those fields though.

 

The only effective way to stop a large scale nuclear assault would be to shoot down the missiles when they take off or later in space before the warheads separate. These kinds of interceptions would most likely require satellite based weapons placed in orbit above enemy launch sites, but placing weapons in space is controversial, especially if it is nuclear weapons which are banned from being placed in orbit by the outer space treaty.

[HeyYou]

Let´s not go off topic shall we? The discussion was not about MAD or Star Wars, but the Diplomatic guarantee that the US extends to its non-nuclear allies, to retaliate an attack upon them with its own arsenal, negating these countries need for an arsenal of their own. Such countries include Australia, Germany, Turkey, Greece, Spain, Italy etc. So, under these guarantees, if Berlin or Rome gets nuked, the US will have to respond with its own arsenal and risk a retaliatory strike on American cities. Do you think such guarantees should exist or would you prefer for example that every one of these guaranteed countries go nuclear and build their own arsenal instead?

 

As for nuclear doctrines, one development during the Cold War was the replacement of the doctrine of Massive Retaliation with the doctrine of Measured Response, where the nuclear powers would exchange nuke for nuke, one warhead for another, instead of launching all of their nukes at once as a retaliation. So a destruction of a city would be retaliated by destroying a comparable city in the other state etc.

 

And as for missile defense systems, current technology does not allow for a comprehensive missile defense. Modern Surface to Air missiles (SAMs) and lasers can perhaps destroy one or two incoming warheads, enough to repel a limited strike, such as one launched by a rogue nation, but NOT a massive strike of thousands of manouverable independently targetable warheads mixed with decoys to make defending even more difficult as you have to shoot down every last one including the decoys, just to make sure nothing gets through, as might be launched by a major nuclear power. No, defending against an all out nuclear strike remains a pipe dream even with current technology, that doesn´t stop the US from investing in research on those fields though.

 

The only effective way to stop a large scale nuclear assault would be to shoot down the missiles when they take off or later in space before the warheads separate. These kinds of interceptions would most likely require satellite based weapons placed in orbit above enemy launch sites, but placing weapons in space is controversial, especially if it is nuclear weapons which are banned from being placed in orbit by the outer space treaty.

 

Do we really want a host more countries with nuclear weapons? I really don't think so, there are too many now, but, the cat is out of the bag, and disarmament really wouldn't be a good idea. Some rogue state that developed a weapon, and delivery system, would then have the upper hand. You don't go to a gun fight with just a knife.

 

In this day and age, it is far more likely that some smaller nation will use a nuke, than any of the major powers. (or, once-major powers.....) So, retaliation on american soil probably wouldn't be a concern, as they wouldn't have a delivery system with the range to hit us. (unless they had something that was sub-launched..... a surface ship would never get close enough.) Question becomes.... WOULD we retaliate? Some variety of response would most certainly be in order..... but, would it necessarily HAVE to be a nuclear response? I think if the US tossed a nuke at some third world country, all we would end up doing is opening a larger can of worms, than we already had.

 

Side note: Weaponizing space, including purely defensive weapons, is banned by several treaties.

[Jopo1980]

But if the US nuclear guarantees cannot be trusted, then other countries don´t have a choice but to go nuclear. Some Japanese nationalists argue that Japan should amend its constitution and establish true armed forces and develop nukes and North Korea is giving them a good reason to argue their case. Yeah! Bring back the Imperial Japanese Army and Navy! :thumbsup:

 

As for the Nordic countries, Sweden had a nuclear weapons program but abandoned it in favor of a nuclear free Nordic zone, but what guarantees do we have that the Russians don´t use nukes against us when they invade some beautiful day and I DO believe we will have to fight the Russians again in the future, it´s just a matter of time.

[Marxist ßastard]

To put things in perspective: At one point, the UK calculated that if it attacked the USSR with its entire nuclear arsenal, even then it could only hit priority targets within Moscow. As in, 420 mi² down, 8649100 mi² to go.

 

So yeah, if Russia engages you in a nuclear war, you are completely screwed even if you pour decades into a nuclear program.

[HeyYou]

To put things in perspective: At one point, the UK calculated that if it attacked the USSR with its entire nuclear arsenal, even then it could only hit priority targets within Moscow. As in, 420 mi² down, 8649100 mi² to go.

 

So yeah, if Russia engages you in a nuclear war, you are completely screwed even if you pour decades into a nuclear program.

 

Huh? What are you talking about? Do you think in a war it would be necessary to nuke every square inch of the enemy? Let me assure you, that is not the case. Drop a couple 100KT bombs on any given 'soft' target, and it's toast. Including cities. It may not be completely leveled, but, it isn't going to be real inhabitable for a bit.

[Marxist ßastard]

Here's the source I based that on. The key points:

• Not every warhead leads to an explosion. Even without “Star Wars,” some still get intercepted. Others are just plain duds.
• People don't build major industrial centers out of wood anymore. To completely destroy priority targets, one needs to get them within a relatively small radius where the overpressure can work against hardened structures.
• It takes an insane amount of effort to make missiles land even just close to where you want them to. Sometimes it will take 2 or 3 missiles aimed at the same exact spot to accumulate an 80% chance of destroying a target, even without duds.
• Some targets (like rail infrastructure and missile silos) are both very hard to destroy, and safe to use just hours (if not minutes) after a nearby explosion.

 

And no, you don't have to glass every square inch of Russia to “win” a nuclear war. That would probably take more fissile material than is available on the planet.

 

But you do have to hit thousands of targets, many of which are hardened structures spread out across all of Russia's 9 time zones. Considering that you may need to use 5 warheads to hit each of these – yeah, you're screwed even if you pour decades into a nuclear program.

[HeyYou]

Here's the source I based that on. The key points:

• Not every warhead leads to an explosion. Even without "Star Wars," some still get intercepted. Others are just plain duds.
• People don't build major industrial centers out of wood anymore. To completely destroy priority targets, one needs to get them within a relatively small radius where the overpressure can work against hardened structures.
• It takes an insane amount of effort to make missiles land even just close to where you want them to. Sometimes it will take 2 or 3 missiles aimed at the same exact spot to accumulate an 80% chance of destroying a target, even without duds.
• Some targets (like rail infrastructure and missile silos) are both very hard to destroy, and safe to use just hours (if not minutes) after a nearby explosion.

 

And no, you don't have to glass every square inch of Russia to "win" a nuclear war. That would probably take more fissile material than is available on the planet.

 

But you do have to hit thousands of targets, many of which are hardened structures spread out across all of Russia's 9 time zones. Considering that you may need to use 5 warheads to hit each of these – yeah, you're screwed even if you pour decades into a nuclear program.

 

A nine year old study?

 

Do you have any idea of just how many warheads/bombs the UK/USA have?

 

You don't necessarily have to destroy the infrastructure, just render it useless for a while. Either that, or kill all the people that make that bit of infrastructure work.

 

Missiles have gotten incredibly accurate over the years. GPS guidance, cruise missiles that can land within six FEET of their target, etc. and deliver warheads of around 250 kilotons. More than enough to thoroughly trash any industrial complex.

 

Missiles designed SPECIFICALLY to penetrate hardened shelters, and THEN go BOOM! These also have the added affect of kicking up a LOT of fallout, rendering the area unusable, and lethal, for weeks. ( more than enough time for the bombers to come along and finish the job.)

 

And then we have MIRV's...... (multiple independent re-entry vehicle. basically, the missile equivalent of a shotgun) One missile, up to nine warheads. Nine different targets, or, overlapping areas of maximum destruction. That would certainly put a damper on your day....... ( have a look at some of the 'strike scenarios' utilizing MIRV's on Detroit, pretty sure those are still available online. Very little would escape a heavy damage radius of one or more warheads.)

 

Star Wars never got off the ground. A misslie defense system against an all-out strike is a waste of money. Too much territory to protect. (especially in the case of russia...) Granted, Moscow seems to be fairly well protected, but, they have never been put to the test either.

 

none of this even considers the effects of EMP. Any unprotected electrical circuit (like, transmission lines....) get smoked. Factories don't work well without power. Even the generators, unless well shielded, would take the hit. No power: No production.

 

 

Bottom line is, a strategic nuclear war would be devastating to both sides, and anyone down wind of them. There would be no "winner", only losers. And you wouldn't even have to participate to be a loser.

Edited November 28, 2011 by HeyYou

[Aurielius]

@Marxist

Though I do not disagree that accurate successful targeting is problematic ( with the target actually hit) your source is hardly an uncontested one. The current thinking is that our (US) ability to hit what we aim at is in the 85% range and that enemy interception is less than 5% range for ballistic platforms and 27% for aircarft.

The War College has also done studies on the issue and have a much higher estimate of doing sufficient damage to a primary target so as to render it non functional, it does not need to be glass to achieve that. Destroy command and control and much of a nation's lower military infrastructure becomes useless, that hardly makes nuclear conflagration more inviting but not so daunting as to be non feasible as a option of last resort. Though it must be admitted that much of our vaunted accuracy is reliant on satellites which would be among the first targeted defense systems which then again put us in the position of relying on air crews and SAC as we did in the 60's.

Edited November 28, 2011 by Aurielius

[Beriallord]

I'm for each nation looking after their own, and putting the interests of their own citizens above that of anything or anyone else. Such a promise makes the US an even bigger target for a nuclear attack, which is detrimental to the safety and security of its own citizens.

 

If someone wanted to cripple the US military, take out the GPS satellites. It will greatly complicate matters for command and control. All precision weapons are depended on that technology, take it away and all those fancy toys and weapons are basically useless.

Edited November 28, 2011 by Beriallord