Hacker News Reader

Comment by clock_tower | Hacker News Reader

It's the Russian ramifications -- not least because of the Russians' "firehose of falsehood" media (http://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE198.html). Russia's initial response here suggests that Putin won't dare to start a nuclear war, if it comes down to that (in Lithuania, for example); but talk is cheap, and he and his minions certainly know how to talk a good game.

View on HN

Certainly Putin wouldn't dare to announce "hey I'm going to start a nuclear war, ok?" However, an ICBM launched from a sub in the Atlantic would reach NYC in, well, less time that it would take for the guys watching the early warning radar scopes to get in touch with the President. There would be no hard evidence linking the source of the attack. With Manhattan pulverized, the US thrown into total chaos, what's Trump going to do? A response would bring total war and the destruction of everything. Both Trump and Putin know this. Trump would have to accept the loss of one city. The US would effectively be off the world stage forever. Putin just may risk this in order to stop the US from meddling in his affairs once and for all. Dr. Strangelove, except orders given by the Kremlin.

Anyone find this plausible or should I turn off the computer and go to sleep?

You really think that Russia could nuke NYC and it wouldn't invite a retaliation? It's trivially easy to identify it as Russia - the only other countries that could do it are Britain & France (our allies) and China (who has no motive as of yet, and can just barely reach NYC with land-based ICBMs). There's no way that Trump is would let a nuclear attack on a U.S. city go unpunished, and so his very next step would be to nuke Moscow. From there, the countries have a showdown: either they continue retaliating and that's the end of life on earth as we know it, or they let it stop at one city and both countries have their most populous city reduced to rubble.

Both countries know this, which is why neither Trump or Putin are going to launch the missiles.

And exactly why the President has ordered this action (presumably). There are those who have demonstrated that they have no such restraints. They, Assad included, are the wild card that threaten long term stability.

"There would be no hard evidence linking the source of the attack."

If are willing to take seriously a movie, Sum of all Fears, then for each ball of plutonium, just take the distribution of its isotopes. If have a catalog of all such balls of plutonium, then, for any one ball of plutonium, its distribution, looked up in the catalog, will identify where and when that plutonium was made. Similarly for any bomb from such a ball of plutonium -- just get the distribution of the isotopes in the fallout from the explosion, look up in the catalog, and know the source of the plutonium. Maybe from the nuclear weapons treaties, the catalog was developed.

If all that is approximately the case, then whenever a plutonium bomb goes off, will know the source.

Next, it may be the case that, if a missile is launched at sea, then US satellites will detect the launch and start a search -- e.g., by air, dropping sonar buoys with active sonar -- to find the submarine.

It may be the case that the submarine trying to get away is limited to a speed of only about 6 knots since going faster might generate enough flow noise for the submarine to be heard and located nearly anywhere in the ocean. If the submarine is limited to such a slow speed, then it would appear that the airplane and sonar buoys would be able to find the submarine easily enough.

Next, it may be the case that the US knows the location, 24 x 7, of every submarine in the world able to launch a nuclear missile.

Net, for a missile with a plutonium warhead to be launched at sea and the submarine to get away without being detected might be nearly impossible.

Subs aren't made for first strikes. The point of them is to hide and launch their nukes to enforce the MAD doctrine. the important parts of the oceans near the US and Russia are guarded quite well even according to publicly available information.

I can't really predict or imagine what would happen in the event NYC was hit with a nuclear missile, but my gut says we'll be back to sticks and stones, regardless of who launched it. A bomb could be blamed on terrorists. Not an ICBM.

>There would be no hard evidence linking the source of the attack.

There would be no hard evidence of a submarine launched ICBM pre-impact in the year 2017? I think you can stay up a while longer.

In the age of fake news, denial and misdirection would work in Putin's favor. All he needs to say is let's send a team to conduct an “impartial, objective, honest investigation.”

Meanwhile, the US collapses.

I mean sure we can say we have hard evidence that the warhead was launched from a Russian sub, but RT will report things differently and half the world won't believe anything the US says anyway.

Honestly this is a serious risk and the only thing we can do is elect a batshit crazy leader who can convince Putin he's stupid enough to push the button. Oh I see...

"Trump knows this" is a strong statement.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com