Hacker News Reader

Comment by jondeval | Hacker News Reader

When I've read about scenarios like this or the topic of mutually assured destruction is discussed, I notice that the concept of 'retaliation' is taken as a given. The premise of immediate retaliation creates the hypothetical domino effect that seems to polarize the discussion between (1) total prevention at all costs or (2) a terrible mass casualty scenario.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Is this assumption of retaliation grounded in the reality of our political systems or perhaps a theory of modern warfare that I'm missing? Don't get me wrong, it sound very plausible, but that is exactly why I'm questioning it and would like to expand my understanding so that it's grounded in something more than just a hunch.

View on HN

Quite simply, it's basic human nature. I don't think you can name a country that its citizens would remain complacent after a nuclear attack. New York, LA, DC, Chicago suddenly get wiped off the map. You don't think the population would demand retaliation? Not only the massive immediate loss of life, but it would decimate the economy. Look at the response to 9/11. That was "just" 2 buildings. Now imagine entire cities that would be impossible to rebuild or habitat.

> You don't think the population would demand retaliation?

No. After seeing the devastation, the population would demand not to escalate.

No. After seeing devastation, the population would demand to escalate.

See this is interesting to me. I tend to agree with you and I think I would be in the de-escalate camp.

Now even if that group is in the minority, how large of a minority would it have to be to at least question the 'guaranteed immediate strategic nuclear retaliation' assumption in our models and plans?

Unfortunately, pacifists tend to be killed or imprisoned by those who are willing to resort to violence.

The weapons also tend to be in the hands of warmongers.

Finally, and probably more importantly, if a nuclear attack was immanent, the US President has something like 5 minutes to decide on whether to launch a counterattack.

The general population won't even have time to participate in this decision. They will just be wiped out along with everyone else.

Coincidentally ACOUP has an essay on this very topic[1] just out.

TL;DR: Strategic bombing has been tried many times in the Second World War and after it. It has never caused the reaction you describe. It invariably stiffens the morale of the bombed population. It backfires very badly.

If you want to win a war, confine yourself to military targets.

1. https://acoup.blog/2022/10/21/collections-strategic-airpower...

Except for, you know, the one time nukes were used in anger (yeah I know it was complicated, but still). Strategic bombing is one thing, but it's really hard to depopulate a city that way. Whereas once nukes start flying, the majority of citizens know they stand a healthy chance of dying in the next few hours or days. I don't know if that changes the result, but the dynamics will be different enough that I wouldn't cite strategic bombing as a comparison.

Humans? They will ask for a 10x retaliation.

A wise politician will convince the people that a x1 retaliation is enough and then make a deal with the other side to stop the destruction. Bout most politician will just launch a x20 retaliation to get more support from the crowd.

9/11 had a response that was fueled by the media to get people into a frenzy to support an unjust invasion of multiple countries.

The MIC was doing its job very well back then to make a multi-trillion war happen.

Just so we are accurate. It was three buildings; hit by 3 planes full of people. A fourth plane that hit the ground and several buildings in New York as secondary casualties.

Immediate retaliation needs to be threatened at least, and in a believable way. Otherwise, there is little deterrence for bad players.

IMO nuclear game theory especially around Launch on Warning / immediate retaliation is going to change in the coming years as everyone builds up conventional global strike missiles. Decision makers will be incentivized to at least wait for confirmation before ending the world.

But otherwise I'm much more pessimistic about narrative around "retaliation" because I think when shit hits fan, MAD doesn't just extends to nations trading nukes but eradicating their entire alliance network that can help rebuild as well. US cold war nuke plans on USSR included nuking PRC just in case. USSR was going to make sure Europe was a wasteland that couldn't help wasteland US rebuild. On paper US/USSR had thousands of nukes because you need multiple for counter-force on harden targets. On secret paper, it's counter value your entire rival block to ensure anyone who can be potential threat after, aren't.

> I notice that the concept of 'retaliation' is taken as a given

There is no room for 'retaliation' in reality. All the superpowers' defense systems are set up to launch in around ~10 minutes if they detect a nuclear launch from the other side. So, all these 'they used nuclear weapons first so we have to retaliate' delirium in the press is totally nonsense. There is no such 'first - second' in a war between nuclear superpowers. They launch simultaneously within ~15 minutes and destroy each other and entire world within ~40 minutes. (includes flight time of the slowest ballistic missile)

Well IDK about russia or china, but if the major US population centers get hit, we immediately become a very republican country. I suspect those people will be rather eager to retaliate.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com