Hacker News Reader

Comment by staunch | Hacker News Reader

The US nuclear triad currently rests dangerously on the US Ohio-class submarines. If the Chinese military develops technology that can eliminate these subs in a surprise attack, they would potentially have the ability to take over the world.

Step 1. Target the 1950s era US ICBM fleet in their static bunkers. This only requires making the POTUS hesitate for ~7 minutes to "use or lose" them.

Step 2. Destroy the few dozen 1950s era upgraded B-52s and a few misc aircraft. Some might slip through but maybe not.

Step 3. Take out the ~14 outdated US ballistic missile subs using new supersonic anti-ship missiles.

Hopefully the US military will be able to upgrade the nuclear triad in time to maintain MAD and eliminate this potential threat. But I think the best solution would be for the entire G7 to develop independent MAD systems so there's never any doubt that it remains in effect.

View on HN

Everything you say is true, but extremely misleading. China's nuclear posture uses what's called the "minimum means of reprisal", which means they have an extremely small nuclear force that is incapable of completing the scenario you outline.

Let me just quote the abstract from Jeffery Lewis's phd dissertation on the topic:

Among the 5 states authorized under the NPT to possess nuclear weapons, China has the most restrained pattern of deployment: The People"s Republic of China (PRC) operationally deploys about 80 nuclear warheads exclusively for usewith land"based ballistic missiles. Its declaratory doctrine rejects the initiation of nuclear war under any circumstance. The PRC does not maintain tactical nuclear forces of any kind, and its strategic forces are kept off alert, with warheads in storage. This posture has been sustained over time and changes in threat perception, suggesting restraint is the result of choice and not expediency.

Furthermore, most of the land based ballistic missiles China has deployed are targeted at India, and not capable of hitting the mainland US.

While the dissertation was written in 2004, essentially nothing substantial has changed since then.

Nothing has changed in 14 years with China's nuclear arsenal?

Based on what evidence?

There have been no substantive changes, but of course there have been minor changes. If you're actually interested in learning more, there's a lot of open source information available. Lewis's blog http://armscontrolwonk.com is a great starting point, but covers a much greater scope.

China is short, by an order of magnitude, in the number of nuclear weapons necessary to perform a reliable first-strike against US silo and air-base sites.

Even if you can find and take out a ballistic missile sub, you cannot with any certainty take out all of them. A single one of those Ohio-class submarine, and its 24 MIRVs is perfectly capable of killing hundreds of millions of people, if launched at China's coast.

China's nuclear arsenal, like the arsenals of France, India, Pakistan, and the United Kingdom, is purely defensive. Life is not a Tom Clancy novel. Russia and the United States are the only countries capable of carrying out a first strike against a nuclear state... And neither of them can do so against the other.

China is one of the countries with the most to lose, and the least to gain in a nuclear exchange.

> Hopefully the US military will be able to upgrade the nuclear triad in time to maintain MAD and eliminate this potential threat.

I consider MAD to be a greater threat. We are talking about extinguishing all human life.

Some reference material:

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/16884.The_Making_of_the_...

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6452798-command-and-cont...

Just recently published: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/25663779-the-doomsday-ma...

> But I think the best solution would be for the entire G7 to develop independent MAD systems so there's never any doubt that it remains in effect.

Comprehensive MAD would be a wonderful thing, if you had utter certainty that the chance for accidental launch was zero. If the chance is nonzero, you've put a time limit on civilization. How long? A hundred years? Three hundred?

You refer derisively to "1950s-era" technology. And you have a point. I'm agreeing with that point, and using it to make the case for a real chance of accidental nuclear war based on flawed or worn-out technology.

The third book in the list above goes into stark detail about the other danger - that of nuclear war based on flawed human decision-making.

>1950s era US ICBM fleet

Minuteman III is 1970s era.

>Destroy the few dozen 1950s era upgraded B-52s and a few misc aircraft.

That's actually incredibly hard.

>Step 3. Take out the ~14 outdated US ballistic missile subs using new supersonic anti-ship missiles.

Target subs with AShMs!? Come again?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com