Hacker News Reader

Comment by Semaphor | Hacker News Reader

> The military’s rationale for offering us access seemed clear. The brass, apparently, wanted to help get Americans accustomed to the increasingly real prospect of conflict with a genuinely powerful opponent. They wanted to humanize the otherwise inhuman—some would say inhumane—reality of nuclear deterrence. And, finally, they wanted to convey a message to China and Russia about US forces and their strategic capabilities, resolve, and, for the moment at least, superiority.

Not a paragraph I normally see in military reporting.

View on HN

The potential (and very likely at this point) US nuclear rearmament is hotly discussed topic atm

It's already underway, and already ballooning in cost. It started under Obama. $1.5 Trillion as a minimum[0].

Sentinel ICBMs, B-21 bombers, and Columbia Class SSBNs.

"The Air Force told Congress January 18 that the newly estimated cost of each LGM-35A Sentinel has jumped from $118 million in 2020 to $162 million today. That’s a 37% spike."

... The service’s original 2016 estimate for the program was $62.3 billion. Then it ballooned to $95.3 billion. The latest projection suggests its new cost could be nearly $132 billion."[1]

[0]https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/inside-the-1-5-tr...

[1] https://www.pogo.org/newsletters/the-bunker/the-bunker-the-s...

Doesn't this project weakness? Is there any reason to believe China or Russia have had doubts about US capabilities that this would now... resolve?

I’d assume that it’s targeted mainly at the US’ population, not any foreign adversary. It’s also relevant that this is the author explaining what they think is the rationale, not the military explaining their reasoning.

given two consecutive failures of uk launched tridents, i think a lot of people have doubts, and that is very dangerous.

This was highly embarrassing though I doubt it changes the equation of nuclear deterrence. Even if only half the trident are functional, no nation in its right mind will want half of the UK ICBMs heading their way. Even if you think you can shoot down most of them. It only takes a handful to flatten your largest cities.

Some loose thoughts on Trident

- Yes, Minister was a prescient show

- Trident is the UK's only nuclear deterrent.

- While the UK fired them, they are taken from a common US-UK pool of interchangeable missiles.

- NATO governments are on the open side. Failures are likely to be made public.

- It is, of course, embarrassing

The UK Tridents currently are on patrol with 8 missiles (they can carry more). What we don't want is someone thinking that out of the 8 a few won't work and maybe the missile defences around their capital city could surely shoot down the remainder?

It's interesting because when it comes to submarines and related nuclear deterrence the US are at least a head in front compared to the Russians (and obviously much more advanced compared to the Chinese), unlike the other two forms of deterrence (land-based and aerial).

The Russians themselves are aware of that gap and have started to try and close it, they've just launched two new nuclear submarines recently [1] and others are on their way.

[1] https://www.aljazeera.com/gallery/2023/12/12/putin-views-rus...

This is sabre-rattling belligerence, plain and simple. There is no threat from Russia or China that can't be countered with a functioning diplomatic and ambassador corps ..

Alas, America doesn't have one of those any more - so it has to rattle sabres to get its way, instead.

The cost of half a submarine such as this would go a long way to restoring peace in the world, were it spent on diplomacy and good will instead of jobs programs for domestic war profiteers...

> There is no threat from Russia or China that can't be countered with a functioning diplomatic and ambassador corps

I feel like Ukrainians would disagree with you.

And Taiwanese.

And people using chips made in Taiwan.

Such a fallacy. The Ukrainians don't have a functioning diplomatic or ambassador corps, either.

Much as Americans might fantasize about adding it as another star to their flag, Ukrainians aren't American citizens whose taxes get wasted on these ridiculous submarines, and the Ukrainian people don't pay for the US' military junta's favorite toys of the month. It buys the old ones for its war.

If America drops a bomb, it is only because it failed at diplomacy. That'll be as true of any war in Taiwan as it is in Ukraine.

> Much as Americans might fantasize about adding it as another star to their flag

Bothsidism is a strong in this one. Why am I not surprised it comes from an Austrian?

> If America drops a bomb, it is only because it failed at diplomacy.

First, diplomacy must be backed by strength, leverage, without it there's nothing to negotiate, because the other side can simply take what it wants. As such, sabre rattling is part of diplomacy. Nuclear deterrence is part of diplomacy.

Second, diplomacy may fail. Western diplomacy failed in 1938 and 1939, and there was war. Sometimes such failures happen and you need to be prepared for that. Layered defense.

I'm quite curious what would be your diplomatic solution to the Taiwan problem, hopefully it would respect the wishes of the Taiwanese residents.

>Austrian

False. I'm Australian. You shouldn't be surprised that someone who has been watching OUR war crimes, crimes against humanity and massive violations of human rights at scale, is critical of the narrative being proffered by folks such as yourself which only leads to more war, bloodshed and calamity. "Bothsidism"?

No, I'm not concerned about any side but my own, which is the only state I can do anything effective about.

>Nuclear deterrence is part of diplomacy.

A classic America-first point of view which is entirely incompatible with the mores of the rest of the world, as we are finding out with BRICS - which is real, true diplomacy.

>Western diplomacy failed in 1938 and 1939

Another very USA'ian-centric perspective which only leads to a blindness. Your argument would be better centered around the failures of the American political ruling classes in preventing the American military junta from massacring 5% of Iraqs population .. in 2003.

Or, lets just address the bear in the room: America's utter failure to commit to the diplomacy of the Minsk accords. Or of the Istanbul agreement. Or any one of countless other acts of real diplomacy that America has shat on, in order to sell its weapons stocks to the cultures its oligarchic classes deem inferior...

Taiwan? Yes indeed, respect the wishes of the Taiwanese residents, and not just the ones the CIA send to have interviews on CNN. ALL of them.

> False. I'm Australian.

So you're an Australian living in Austria (Vienna, from your github)? Nice!

You're bothsidist, because you're projecting Russian imperialism of trying to conquer Ukraine (for centuries) on USA. Absurd.

> A classic America-first point of view which is entirely incompatible with the mores of the rest of the world, as we are finding out with BRICS - which is real, true diplomacy.

Now it's you making the mistake of assuming an identity.

I hope you're aware of the R in BRICS, currently waging a brutal war and regularly nuclear sabre rattling. So what diplomacy you're talking about?

> America's utter failure to commit to the diplomacy of the Minsk accords.

What did USA had to do with Minsk accords? Also, what a stellar example of diplomacy after Russia invaded Ukraine.

> Taiwan? Yes indeed, respect the wishes of the Taiwanese residents, and not just the ones the CIA send to have interviews on CNN. ALL of them.

You can take a look at the election results in the recent years (there were presidential ones just a month ago). Or are those manipulated by CIA as well?

As a non-Russian citizen, I can do nothing effective about Russia - AND NEITHER CAN YOU AMERICAN.

>What did USA had to do with Minsk accords?

They instructed their puppet to ignore them and knowingly set Ukraine on a path to utter destruction as a result.

>Also, what a stellar example of diplomacy after Russia invaded Ukraine.

There was none - that is the point.

American military junta massacring 5% of Iraqs population in 2003.

Even outside estimates of total "excess deaths" in the entire Iraq war -- regardless of cause or party directly responsible -- don't amount to 5 percent of the population. Or even half that.

In other words -- just another random factoid you vaguely thought you remembered from somewhere. As with your synopsis of Minsk + Istanbul.

If America drops a bomb, it is only because it failed at diplomacy.

This suggests a belief that diplomacy is always sufficient to prevent war. Which runs counter to all of observed human history.

If this where the case we wouldn't have had any peace. Ever.

Did a spokesperson say that? Else just another case where the authors opinion and hyperthetical is presented as fact.

It’s presented as the authors' opinion, imo?

By adding a single "aparently" in the paragraph?

"seemed" and "apparently". I don’t think they are hiding it from anyone but you.

The author reflecting why they got this much-valued access is the actually interesting part of this.

How is the author's misguided speculation interesting?

If that was supposed to be the interesting part the title wouldn't be:

> Life Aboard a Nuclear Submarine

Just report what you saw, not what you feel.

Reporters used to know to not be the subject.

They were invited on and that wasn't good enough.

They had to make up some plot in their head why they were invited on to confirm their bias and influence others.

You’d rather they be a transparent conduit for state propaganda? Better to remind readers that the military sees value in this article existing.

No I'd rather just read about god damn life on the god damn submarine as the title suggests.

A quick conversation with my brother about what it was like was more informative than this trash.

Can we talk to your brother about the operation details of live on-board, too?

Why, because the article didn't satisfy you right?

Totally agree.

I'll take that your brother hasn't spoken to you about OpSec.

Interesting that the military would willingly present themselves as the single greatest threat to american security.

.. and not America's utter failure to produce any diplomacy worth its salt in the world today.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com