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

141–150 of 159 posts

Re: Will AI steal submarines’ stealth?

#141

Post by cupofpython »

toast0 wrote: post #60
bpodgursky wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's tricky because if you do it in secret, it's not MAD, and it's not actually an effective deterrent. It only works as a deterrent if you break the treaty and everyone knows you've broken the treaty (whether you publicly admit it or not) but we aren't there afaik.

> It only works as a deterrent if you break the treaty and everyone knows you've broken the treaty (whether you publicly admit it or not) but we aren't there afaik. It could work if it gets to the point where 'only an idiot' wouldn't have broken the treaty, so you can just assume everyone has, because the idea is fairly obvious, the technology is easy, and there's not any other good options. Or if a rogue state does…

but then you dont actually have to spend resources breaking the treaty since everyone is already assuming you did.

at best it's just an "are you feeling lucky?" situation unless you publicly prove it

Re: Will AI steal submarines’ stealth?

#142

Post by dylan604 »

trashtester wrote: post #85
dylan604 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And how many of those Ohio class subs actually carry missles and have not been filled with cement ballast?

I expect such things to be confidential....

So confidential that the information is listed on wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio-class_submarine

Re: Will AI steal submarines’ stealth?

#143

Post by euroderf »

trhway wrote: post #28
unchocked wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"Starship Troopers" (the film) had an asteroid as a city-buster.

Re: Will AI steal submarines’ stealth?

#144

Post by runjake »

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.

Keep in mind if we launch a missile from the Great Lakes, it’s heading north over the arctic to get to its destination.

Re: Will AI steal submarines’ stealth?

#145

Post by kennend3 »

noduerme wrote: post #45
ok_dad wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It does seem silly, but not out or the realm of possibility. The Great Lakes stretch further north and closer to the Russian heartland than almost any land in America. Any international waters further north and closer by great circle distance to Moscow, besides the north Atlantic, are covered in ice part of the year. Someone said it's cheaper to dig holes in the ground. The problem is those holes are on a first strik…

Can you provide a map which indicates how the "Great lakes" (Lakes Superior, Michigan, Huron, Erie, and Ontario) are somehow "close to Moscow"?

These lakes are in general on or near the Canada–United States border.

There are rivers to the north which feed the lakes, but the lakes are no where near Moscow.

Perhaps you mean Moscow, Ontario which is around 35KM north of Lake Ontario?

If not, Moscow, Russia is a 16 hour flight from the great lakes area.

Re: Will AI steal submarines’ stealth?

#146

Post by kennend3 »

andkenneth wrote: post #114
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

Because submarine launched missiles do not have the range of ICBMs.

Most nuclear equipped responses use the same principle. Get the payload to Low Earth orbit and re-enter.

So let's look at the Trident system for a second (used on subs).

This is a MIRV weapon (Multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle) Reentry refers to "space".

This gives them a tremendous range.

Triden's posted range is 12,000 KM.

Using "Toronto" to estimate distances as it is on Lake Ontario: Toronto to Moscow - 7,400 KM Toronto to Beijing - 10,583 KM

Therefor a sub in the great lakes with a trident system can reach pretty much any key "target".

Re: Will AI steal submarines’ stealth?

#147

Post by Retric »

dylan604 wrote: post #142
trashtester wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I expect such things to be confidential....

So confidential that the information is listed on wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio-class_submarine

A treaty limited them to 20 ICMB’s on each of 14 subs down from 24. Each ICMB can hold 12 independently targeting 100kt warheads or 8 larger 0.45 MT nukes.

However, it might be that less than 20 missiles are loaded and or teach ICBM is not carrying the maximum capacity of nukes, but we just don’t know.

Re: Will AI steal submarines’ stealth?

#148

Post by fragmede »

kennend3 wrote: post #145
noduerme wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does seem silly, but not out or the realm of possibility. The Great Lakes stretch further north and closer to the Russian heartland than almost any land in America. Any international waters further north and closer by great circle distance to Moscow, besides the north Atlantic, are covered in ice part of the year. Someone said it's cheaper to dig holes in the ground. The problem is those holes are on a first strik…

Can you provide a map which indicates how the "Great lakes" (Lakes Superior, Michigan, Huron, Erie, and Ontario) are somehow "close to Moscow"? These lakes are in general on or near the Canada–United States border. There are rivers to the north which feed the lakes, but the lakes are no where near Moscow. Perhaps you mean Moscow, Ontario which is around 35KM north of Lake Ontario? If not, Moscow, Russia is a 16 hour…

An ICBM will take less than an hour to travel that distance ballistically. Ie going to space and back.

Re: Will AI steal submarines’ stealth?

#149

Post by fragmede »

volkl48 wrote: post #133
onion2k wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those will be among the targets in the first strike. Unless they can fire before the nukes hit they're not useful. Subs are pretty much the only option. I suspect foreign agents try to bribe people in submarine crews to sabotage their sub in the event of a strike. If someone onboard could stop the American second strike missiles being fired they'd give Russia a huge advantage. I imagine the Navy have considerer this.

In the event of a full nuclear war, whoever is on board the sub has probably just had their family, friends, and home vaporized. Further, they are trapped in a small metal tube with 100 other people in similar condition, and who will probably be....not pleased if any sabotage is discovered. I suspect it would be very hard to successfully bribe said crew members. (And have them actually follow through with their end o…

Unless it's for ideological reasons and nothing to do with money.
Post reply on HN