Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Normal
The most likely threat to a US (or UK or French) SSBN after firing this theoretical 1 retaliatory missile would be Russian SSN sent to the general area the missile was launched from. This is likely to involve a journey time long enough to make it potentially a bit of a token effort. I don’t think Russia has the long range ASW capabilities to realistically otherwise target such a sub.And this essentially misses the wider/ more significant points. What would Russia actually decide to do if it’s initial use of a tactical nuclear weapon was followed by 1 US (or UK or French) nuclear retaliation, potentially using a strategic weapon like 1 Trident missile? Essentially anything other than magnanimously taking it on the chin without retaliating would lead to an escalating nuclear tit for tat probably unavoidably leading to a full scale nuclear exchange. And if determined to retaliate, and if the launch sub was just too difficult (or weapon intensive) to find and/or target, then they would just pick another easier less demanding target.While I’m not a fan of nuclear weapons I accept their inevitability and recognize that it’s not helpful or healthy to have some kind of massive-retaliation-only policy. However I think it’s essentially ignoring human nature and actual decision making to pretend that we are talking about rational people making dry logical decisions. Given the existential risks involved the side that decides to be the first to use nuclear weapons has already made an irrational decision. Why is it remotely reasonable to think there won’t be more such decisions from multiple sides in such a pressurised stressful scenario, with both sides likely unavoidably trapped in an escalation spiral.The sales pitch of the SLCM-N smacks of the absolute worst Cold War era game-theory influenced, almost semi-autistic nuclear strategy, a pseudo-rational fantasy masquerading as an accurate depiction of actual decision making, sold on a false promise of limited reassurance and some sense of control to those that want/ need to believe it.
The most likely threat to a US (or UK or French) SSBN after firing this theoretical 1 retaliatory missile would be Russian SSN sent to the general area the missile was launched from. This is likely to involve a journey time long enough to make it potentially a bit of a token effort. I don’t think Russia has the long range ASW capabilities to realistically otherwise target such a sub.
And this essentially misses the wider/ more significant points. What would Russia actually decide to do if it’s initial use of a tactical nuclear weapon was followed by 1 US (or UK or French) nuclear retaliation, potentially using a strategic weapon like 1 Trident missile? Essentially anything other than magnanimously taking it on the chin without retaliating would lead to an escalating nuclear tit for tat probably unavoidably leading to a full scale nuclear exchange. And if determined to retaliate, and if the launch sub was just too difficult (or weapon intensive) to find and/or target, then they would just pick another easier less demanding target.
While I’m not a fan of nuclear weapons I accept their inevitability and recognize that it’s not helpful or healthy to have some kind of massive-retaliation-only policy. However I think it’s essentially ignoring human nature and actual decision making to pretend that we are talking about rational people making dry logical decisions. Given the existential risks involved the side that decides to be the first to use nuclear weapons has already made an irrational decision. Why is it remotely reasonable to think there won’t be more such decisions from multiple sides in such a pressurised stressful scenario, with both sides likely unavoidably trapped in an escalation spiral.
The sales pitch of the SLCM-N smacks of the absolute worst Cold War era game-theory influenced, almost semi-autistic nuclear strategy, a pseudo-rational fantasy masquerading as an accurate depiction of actual decision making, sold on a false promise of limited reassurance and some sense of control to those that want/ need to believe it.
