Hacker News Reader

Comment by viraptor | Hacker News Reader

So what's the motivation for those more advanced weapons? I thought we're already at MAD and the amount of current rockets would not be stopped by any existing system. (I.e. at least a small portion would get though) This would make developing anything more a waste of resources/time. Is that not correct anymore?

View on HN

For killing aircraft carriers, mainly. The US’s eleven carriers are a key advantage over Russia (and China), and destroying those would be a top priority in a real shooting war where neither side actually wanted to escalate to nuclear weapons.

Tinfoily, but perhaps US anti missile systems are more effective than were lead to believe.

Its not tinfoil. ICBMs are nearly impossible to stop, and the systems designed to shoot them down only have like a ~50% chance of working.

It's mostly a response to US stealth and anti-missile tech. Russia has been having trouble keeping up with US "First Strike" capability. They are afraid that we will mark and destroy their nuclear launch facilities all at once using stealth assets and stop them from retaliating by shooting down any that they manage to launch in time with ABS systems. This would essentially neuter them as a nuclear power in an instant.

It doesn't matter if we WOULD do such a thing. But the fact that maybe we can, prompts the development of these nearly unlimited range cruise missiles that we wouldn't be able to shoot down in time to stop a retaliation. In addition having your nukes literally hovering around your enemy is a great intimidation tactic.

The nightmare for any major power is being open to nuclear strike without the capability to retaliate.

These missiles take a long a time to reach destination, and the time can be extended by a prolonged voyage (circle the globe a few times). The only people who can disarm the warhead are the enemies. You're not going to blow up your enemies while the missile is in the air. It's a great political tool. Launch a missile and everyone starts talking and giving in to your demands.

it's not really such a deterministic thing. countries tend to be pretty secretive about the specifics of their nuclear attack/defense capabilities. it's hard to give better than a rough estimate of how many missiles could actually get through the defenses. if one superpower can deliver significantly more warheads on target than the other, MAD becomes less effective. it increases the temptation to use nuclear weapons in a desperate situation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com