Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Will AI steal submarines’ stealth?

spectrum.ieee.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 159 posts

Re: Will AI steal submarines’ stealth?

#21

Post by jwithington »

Retric wrote: post #10

At least for the US why not keep one or more nuclear missile subs in the Great Lakes? Lake Superior alone covers 31,700 square miles to an average depth of 483 feet. It’s far to large an area to target with a first strike and well protected from non US/Canadian forces. Edit: A US/Canadian treaty demilitarized the Great Lakes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush–Bagot_Treaty

I think we could but why build a whole base complete with nuclear weapons handling and reactor maintenance facilities on the Great Lakes? Just use the ones in Georgia/Washington.

It’s a fun thought exercise though!

Re: Will AI steal submarines’ stealth?

#22

Post by dexterdog »

GoOnThenDoTell wrote: post #17
dontlaugh wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US uses submarines to threaten attacks on far away countries, not for defence.

subs can deny access to an incoming navy by sinking them

Can nuke subs do that much damage to a ship? I thought they were equipped to hide from everything and deliver massive damage to large land-based targets.

Re: Will AI steal submarines’ stealth?

#23

Post by ceejayoz »

ok_dad wrote: post #12
Retric wrote: post #10

At least for the US why not keep one or more nuclear missile subs in the Great Lakes? Lake Superior alone covers 31,700 square miles to an average depth of 483 feet. It’s far to large an area to target with a first strike and well protected from non US/Canadian forces. Edit: A US/Canadian treaty demilitarized the Great Lakes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush–Bagot_Treaty

The idea is subs deliver missiles halfway around the world, the rockets do the rest. It’s a matter of an hour for a rocket to transit from the Great Lakes to the other side of the planet, but half that for rockets fired from most of the way there already.

Shortening the time to target is one of the benefits (well, is that really the right term here?) of submarines, yes, but another is survivability for a retaliatory strike as a deterrent. Trident missiles have at least a 7,500 mile range. A couple in the Great Lakes would provide that with complete safety against Russian hunter-killer subs.

Re: Will AI steal submarines’ stealth?

#24

Post by trasz »

XorNot wrote: post #16
dontlaugh wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US uses submarines to threaten attacks on far away countries, not for defence.

No it doesn't. Ballistic missile submarines are exclusively useful as second strike weapons: they don't carry enough warheads, nor are they accurate enough to first strike weapons (which have to reliably hit military targets and threaten an opponent's retaliation ability).

Not true; subs are part of every carrier fleet.

Re: Will AI steal submarines’ stealth?

#27

Post by whakim »

unchocked wrote: post #8

Seems naive that, as the article claims, nations might agree to limit their detection technology to enhance survivability of their adversaries’ nuclear forces. If “ocean transparency” comes to pass, it seems much likelier that we’d have to deal with a realignment of the MAD calculus.

Even though this seems paradoxical, there's actually a logic to it.

One of the reasons countries like the United States and Russia (previously, the USSR) maintain such large nuclear arsenals is to project a credible thread of a second strike - i.e., the idea that any first strike wouldn't be able to completely knock out the opponent's nuclear arsenal. If both sides think that the "submarine" portion of their nuclear triad isn't sufficiently contributing to second strike capability, that'll probably just mean significantly doubling down on ICBMs and forward-deployed bombers (or investing in a different delivery system) so that the calculus remains fundamentally unchanged.

Re: Will AI steal submarines’ stealth?

#28

Post by trhway »

unchocked wrote: post #9
trhway wrote: post #3

by the mentioned 2050 MAD would probably include space based (free flying as well as Moon and asteroids based) components.

Worth noting that the Outer Space Treaty prohibits “weapons of mass destruction” in space, though that is generally interpreted to apply only to nuclear weapons.

An asteroid (or even just a huge - say 100K tons - space transport barge full of ore) with a huge rocket engine attached - until it is targeted as a weapon, it is hardly can be considered a weapon (yet for example 2000 ton coming in at 10km/s would be a Hiroshima TNT equivalent). And for MAD you do need to have credible threat to wipe your opponents Mars/Moon/etc. colonies too.

Re: Will AI steal submarines’ stealth?

#29

Post by trashtester »

dexterdog wrote: post #22
GoOnThenDoTell wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

subs can deny access to an incoming navy by sinking them

Can nuke subs do that much damage to a ship? I thought they were equipped to hide from everything and deliver massive damage to large land-based targets.

A few Virginia class escorts could probably sink almost any non-NATO navy task force on their own. Add a carrier group on top/to the rear of them, and you can scratch "almost".

The Ohio subs do not go unprotected. However, they are designed to be able to carry not only nukes but also cruise missiles (up to 154 Tomahawks for instance), which would make the a huge threat to any naval force.

Also, let's say that these subs were used to deliver a few hundred anti-surface Tomahawks against for instance a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. Not only would the missiles themselves be able to sink a lot of surface assets, the use of these subs would also signal their presence, indicating that the USN was meaning business.

Re: Will AI steal submarines’ stealth?

#30

Post by shepherdjerred »

unchocked wrote: post #9
trhway wrote: post #3

by the mentioned 2050 MAD would probably include space based (free flying as well as Moon and asteroids based) components.

Worth noting that the Outer Space Treaty prohibits “weapons of mass destruction” in space, though that is generally interpreted to apply only to nuclear weapons.

If there's anything we know about treaties it's that everyone always follows them
Post reply on HN