41–50 of 159 posts
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
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.
Modern AI can barely drive a car under ideal conditions without crashing. The ocean is full of sounds. AI is decades away (still, and I've said this now for decades) from figuring out what it is hearing.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.”
Modern AI can barely drive a car under ideal conditions without crashing. The ocean is full of sounds. AI is decades away (still, and I've said this now for decades) from figuring out what it is hearing.
Sub detection involves a series of guesses with no significant penalty for being wrong - you just spend time looking again until you're sure. It's an infinitely easier problem.
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.
Yes, it would violate treaties against the weaponization of space but I would lay even money on the idea that some country has already done this.
Does anyone know if there have been any breakthroughs in communicating with submarines underwater?
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/31477/heres-why-an-e-6...