Hacker News Reader

Comment by exabrial | Hacker News Reader

Here's the thing about submarines you may not realize: they are the trump card when it comes to nuclear warfare and keeping MAD in place. If one country "struck first" and tried to wipe out our nuclear silos, nuclear armed subs would retaliate. Given the surface are of the world covered by water, there are quite a few hiding places too.

What happens to MAD after we have a reliable way to detect subs? :/ Don't really know.

View on HN

This article wasn't talking about Boomers, like the Ohio Class, which can go hide in the middle of the ocean, but attack class submarines, which need to get up close to their target. The theory is that with more advanced detection technology, you can blanket an small area with sensors, and deny that small area to an attack submarine.

This has no implications for MAD.

To extend this, the US attack submarine has seen mission creep from suppressing the opponent's missile submarine; directly engaging the opponent's attack submarines to protect friendly boomers; and harrying the opponent's capital naval and merchant fleets. With the end of the Cold War, US attack submarines have been increasingly deployed out of blue-water roles for which they are truly suited.

Industrial inertia more than increasing opponent capability has been the driving force behind continued maintenance of a substantial attack submarine fleet via the development of replacements for the Los Angeles class...somehow the reduction in boomers to hunt for didn't mean significantly fewer attack submarines and there are more in service now than at the turn of the millennium.

I've always considered them to be a "trump-card" against any developments that negate surface craft.

Suppose in a future "Battle of the Taiwan Straight" the PRC makes it sufficiently unhealthy that our carriers can't support the ROC? And things are marginal for the destroyers we can spare? If they can't also negate the attack subs....

I would cut the carrier force before I'd cut the attack subs.

At the danger of starting something political, I don't think the US can win a war with China in the Taiwan straight regardless of fleet composition. China is not Iraq in terms of signals intelligence, electronic warfare capability, and nuclear arsenal. Never mind financial and political wherewithal.

The Chinese were more than a match sixty years ago to the point that MacArthur was fired over wanting to go hot with the nukes. Their strength relative to that of the US has only increased in the interim. In addition the US's interests are less aligned with those of 中國國民黨 with each passing year. The Koumintang lost the civil war and communism has been replaced by other bogeymen.

The reality is that the US is at best in position to broker a reasonably peaceful solution along the lines of the British transfer of Hong Kong.

Against the US of that time (Truman disamement resulted in the military buying back "surplus" recently sold), the US Army of that time (read the chapter "Proud Legions" in This Kind of War), against one of the most overrated generals in US history ... they "were more than a match". So were the North Koreans prior to Ridgway taking command of the 8th Army and e.g. our cracking the problem of the KPA's T-34s. The Marines, on the other hand, hadn't devolved like the Army, and their story was very different.

Even then, with the PRC entering the war rather late in the game, the total for the war kill ratios were 1-3 in our favor.

The ability of the ROC and the US to win such a modern battle of the Taiwan Straights depends on too many unknowns for us to make any solid predictions right now. How much of Taiwan is the PRC willing to destroy to capture it? Can a clever attack by air avoid the "million man swim"? Will we even have enough time to mobilize, or would it be a a Bolt Out Of the Blue attack? Would they even try if the new PRC leadership starts failing hard on the mainland? Or might that prompt them to try, but perhaps badly? Would we even try if Obama was still President?

As for "a reasonably peaceful solution", I don't see that even being a possibility with the new leadership's program of repression.

They aren't the sole trump card, that role is also played by manned bombers that can launch on warning from the middle of the without committing to bomb that targets, without even having the ability to arm their warheads (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permissive_Action_Link ); SLBMs are trump cards against undetectable attacks, or at least ones that can be detected in time, see for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_Orbital_Bombardment...

You'd also have to be very confident in your ability to carry out a first strike. Ah, and there's a quick fix, a limited ABM deployment (we've got them and are pretty confident they work). Since you can't pick which warheads get taken out by the ABM systems, the difficultly becomes massively greater.

Note also that historically only the US believed in MAD, the Soviets correctly thought it was unmitigated evil. Then again, they had to accept it....

Yep. MIRV's also make it incredibly hard for any kind of "Missile Defense".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_independently_targeta...

I didn't clearly state my case.

A first strike requires reliably hitting a bunch of targets, often on a schedule. If your intended target has a possibility of randomly (from your viewpoint) taking out some fraction of these incoming warheads, how much more complicated does that make your plan?

If you're talking about protecting a target (nation) from an attack, then "Missile Defense" shouldn't even be your first line of defense. Civil Defense is to protect the people's lives, anti-missile defenses to protect their possessions and those who don't make it to a shelter in time.

No ABM system has demonstrated success against either MIRVs or deployed PENAIDS (much less 53T6), but more to the point BM's of any sort are not a first strike weapon (given US and RF radar nets, 24/7 US launch detection capability, and part-of-the-day RF launch detection capability).

If the US has a first strike weapon, it's a fleet of nuclear-capable stealth bombers employing GPS-guided laydown-capable munitions, coupled with a pretty nasty set of eyes in the sky to find mobile launchers. F-35 is also stealth and MAY get a B61 interface to replace NATO Tornados and F-16s, etc.

Not to mention that over the next 20 years, it seems very likely our nuclear delivery options will expand to the UAV field in some manner or another.

And we'll also see advances when it comes to very long range, hypersonic strike weapons that can carry nuclear payloads (Prompt Global Strike, you can bet they'll be able to slap a small nuke on it, whether they openly admit that or not).

This is outdated information. FOBS are not deployed, and there are no US/NATO aircraft on alert. I don't know who you are speaking for regarding confidence in ABM's, but it's not the community of technical professionals that analyze strategic defense and deterrence. SLBM's are not a trump card, since if they are what you are relying on for counter-strike, your nation has been annihilated.

> What happens to MAD after we have a reliable way to detect subs? :/ Don't really know.

Also, what happens if one side develops or believes they've developed that capability, and the other doesn't know? For example, a surprise attack to forever end U.S. power could be very tempting to competitors. They may decide they never will have a better opportunity, to grab the brass ring and do something historic, or that their odds are better in a surprise attack than in some expected future conflict.

I see many responses dismissing your concern. How much are they willing to bet on those theories? The future of humanity?

This month, and 3 years ago:

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/russian-intel-ship-s... http://www.businessinsider.com/a-suspected-russian-submarine... http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/11/06/report-second-rus...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com