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

31–40 of 159 posts

Re: Will AI steal submarines’ stealth?

#31

Post by trashtester »

trasz wrote: post #24
XorNot wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Those would be Virginia class attacks subs, not ballistic missile subs, I think. An Ohio class could be added temporarily, though, to add even more cruise missile capability to the task force. (Since they, or at least some of them, are now dual purpose platforms.)

Re: Will AI steal submarines’ stealth?

#32

Post by jwithington »

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.

Yes. The primary mission of “fast-attack” submarines are to shoot torpedoes and destroy ships and other submarines.

It takes only one torpedo to disable most surface ships. An American Seawolf class submarine can carry ~50 torpedoes.

Re: Will AI steal submarines’ stealth?

#33

Post by ceejayoz »

jwithington wrote: post #21
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!

The idea is that ones based in the Great Lakes would be immune to interception by enemy submarines discovering and shadowing them; you're not gonna get an Akula up the St. Lawrence Seaway.

Re: Will AI steal submarines’ stealth?

#34

Post by ceejayoz »

whakim wrote: post #27
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…

It would very much change the calculus for the UK and France, though. Maybe Israel, as well.

Re: Will AI steal submarines’ stealth?

#35

Post by jonas21 »

dontlaugh wrote: post #15
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 US uses submarines to threaten attacks on far away countries, not for defence.

The US uses ballistic missile submarines to provide counterstrike capability that can't be destroyed by a nuclear first strike. This deters adversaries from attacking us because they'll know that no matter what they do, we'll still be able to annihilate them in response.

If, as this article claims, it will be impossible for submarines to hide in open waters in the future, hiding submarines in large, protected bodies of water such as the Great Lakes becomes a compelling option.

Re: Will AI steal submarines’ stealth?

#36

Post by kiernanmcgowan »

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.

You're skipping over the concept of "survivability" of submarines which enable a second-strike capability. It's not about getting the missiles closer to the enemy, but ensuring that there are nukes that can be launched in the case of the US falling to a surprise attack.

In theory this would deter a first-strike against the US because the subs could still retaliate with massive damage. Thus, cutting second-strike capability could make first-strike more likely in the eyes of US strategic (eg nuclear) planning.

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

Re: Will AI steal submarines’ stealth?

#37

Post by Retric »

jwithington wrote: post #21
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!

Ships much larger than ohio subs can get into and out of the Great Lakes via locks.

Looks like the real reason is a US Canadian treaty. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush–Bagot_Treaty

Re: Will AI steal submarines’ stealth?

#38

Post by bombcar »

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

It is/was simpler and cheaper to just stick nukes in big holes in the ground all over the midwest.

Some are probably still "hot".

Re: Will AI steal submarines’ stealth?

#39

Post by ceejayoz »

hyperhopper wrote: post #13
zoomablemind wrote: post #11

The conclusion of the in-depth ...and in-length article: "...The stealthy submarine isn’t gone; it still has years of life left. That gives us ample time to find new ways to keep the peace."

Betteridge's law of headlines is an adage that states: "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headli...

Which is great, until someone writes the "Can any headline that ends in a question mark be answered by the word no?" article.

Re: Will AI steal submarines’ stealth?

#40

Post by elefanten »

ceejayoz wrote: post #39
hyperhopper wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Betteridge's law of headlines is an adage that states: "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headli...

Which is great, until someone writes the "Can any headline that ends in a question mark be answered by the word no?" article.

Article body: “No. The article that goes with this headline cannot be answered in the negative without forming a dilemma.”
Post reply on HN