Confused about nuclear war...

[cilla4progress]

My study of Polisci in College (mid 1970s) taught me there was some parity between the then-superpowers in terms of defensive weapons - to stop or deflect a nuclear bomb or missile.

There was also MAD - mutually assured destruction.

Is this inevitability where we now stand?

[BGBD]

1. Our ability to stop an incoming ICBM

Is essentially flipping a coin.

Three distinct phases of delivery. Launch, outer atmosphere travel, and reentry. Launch is too fast to effectively expect to intercept and reentry too late/short. Travel is the only reasonable approach but it has been shaky. We haven't been able to do it dependably in testing, and that's just counting a hit on the missile. We would really need to be able to target the warhead to ensure destruction. That's om 1 target, imagine 20 targets simultaneously. Some are going to hit.

Now, take into account suitcase nukes, submarine launces, and bombers. There's not way to defend against a country with thousands of nukes....which is why we also have thousands of nukes with multiple delivery capabilities. Knowing if they attack they will die with is is the best defense and has worked for 70 years.

[dutch777]

3. Yeah, it is MAD as a deterrent. Under a major enemy launch scenario some will get through.

And if you are Putin, all you really need to do is hit some cities in the EU and the western economy goes in the dumpster and panic will be widespread. Sub launched missiles or cruise missiles can accomplish that easily with little chance of being intercepted. Whether the US responds from its strategic nuclear force or not, at that point for Putin, what is more hardship and a few more millions of Russians dead? He got to thumb his nose at the West, big time. I am sure it won't happen, but this is why tolerating dictatorships is a bad idea and we need to just sanction them all into functional oblivion until their people revolt.

[sarisataka]

2. Back in the 70s the ability to actively defend

Against ICBMs was essentially zero. Today it is better but not nearly good enough to prevent either country from being destroyed by an all out attack.

MAD is still the basis for global nuclear peace. It can break down quickly if someone starts thinking such a war is "winnable".

The greatest danger however is the lower yield tactical nukes. Using such on a battlefield is crossing a line that was drawn after Nagasaki. The road from a single nuke to all out war can be a journey of many steps, or very few.

[TreasonousBastard]

4. We have always assumed that nukes e isted, but cooler heads...

will prevail.

I think we actually hoped, more than believed, but if we were wrong, MAD was unthinkable.

Every so often we asked ourselves about a madman and the nuclear button, or the problem of all the little guys with nukes. But, over 70 years without a world war and all of us have let our guard down. The questions of what would Stalin or Hitler have done with a nuke are now before us.

We just got rid of our would be Mussolini, but Stalin's ghost is in the Kremlin.

[NeoGreen]

5. Listen to these two conversations, for an informed perspective...

...

Neither are behind the paywall:

https://www.samharris.org/podcasts/making-sense-episodes/186-the-bomb

https://www.samharris.org/podcasts/making-sense-episodes/210-logic-doomsday


Edited to add;
William Perry’s Nuclear Terrorism Scenario:

[cilla4progress]

6. Thanks

...

[Javaman]

9. I have yet to listen to the podcasts but the video has several sizable holes of logic in it. nt

[Miguelito Loveless]

7. This assumes the use of startegic nukes, i.e. ICBMs

It ignores the fact that Russia believes it can use smaller, tactical nukes, delivered by artillery, aircraft, or cruise missile on a battlefield and get away with it because the only next step is escalation to MAD. They are betting the West won't escalate and respond with its own tactical nukes, so they can use them with impunity.

This is, I believe, current Russian military doctrine. Someone may correct me if I am wrong.

[BGBD]

8. That's correct, as for their stated doctrine

But I belive that isn't reality for then. The only way a nuke could be used without expecting a reaction would be to stop an advancing army inside of Russia.

Drop is on Kyiv and that's going to force the world to react with at least pushing Ryssia back to their borders but more likely with an offensive assault inside of Russia to topple their government. In that case everyone would have to assume nukes would be deployed again and use them preemptively.

[old as dirt]

10. IN THE KING OF PRUSSIA: THE TRIAL OF THE PLOWSHARES 8

The Battle of Church and State:

IN THE KING OF PRUSSIA: THE TRIAL OF THE PLOWSHARES 8 (full movie)

IN THE KING OF PRUSSIA: THE TRIAL OF THE PLOWSHARES 8 takes us back to 1982 with Emile de Antonio's portrayal of the Plowshares 8 civic disobedience at General Electric's nuclear weapons plant in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. The group included Molly Rush, co-founder of the Merton Center. Posting of this cliip celebrates the April 13 visit of Martin Sheen, who plays the judge in the movie, to Pittsburgh, Pa and the Thomas Merton Center. YOU CAN'T HUG A CHILD WITH NUCLEAR ARMS!!!