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

Where to hide your nuclear missile submarine?

sattrackcam.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 64 posts

Re: Where to hide your nuclear missile submarine?

#41

Post by pavel_lishin »

whathaschanged wrote: post #31
EGreg wrote: post #23

Um, it seems to me you'd direct your submarine close to the coast of a city and your missile launch would not need ICBMs. In fact, I am worried about TacNukes - like the kind we see in James Bond movies - being smuggled INTO A CITY! https://www.wired.com/2002/11/nukes-2/ Here is an article about loose nukes. North Korea has ALREADY given Syria nuclear material to build a functioning nuclear weapons facility. Google "…

You're probably down voted because actual discussion would lead to the Samson Option.

What's the Samson Option?

Re: Where to hide your nuclear missile submarine?

#42

Post by nasredin »

izacus wrote: post #40
nasredin wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only openly hostile country with SLBMs is Russia. So Russia is probably the best choice. IIRC both have about 60 subs and Russia is back at their post-1991 strength. See the recent WaPo article about them mapping undersea cables.

Russia is hostile? By what metric?

Annexation of Crimea in 2014.

Support for the only active war on Europe.

Destabilization of EU, NATO, US elections.

---

Take a look at Russian TV and polls. The Russian government (TV propaganda) and people (Putin has 80+ approval) do not want to be friends. (Unless you are Syria, Iran or North Korea).

Re: Where to hide your nuclear missile submarine?

#44

Post by pps43 »

nasredin wrote: post #33
pps43 wrote: post #25

If you detect a massive ICBM launch from Russia, you know what to do - nuke Russia. You have half an hour to launch before Russian missiles take out all silos. Now what do you do if you detect SLBM launch from somewhere in the Pacific Ocean? Who do you nuke?

The only openly hostile country with SLBMs is Russia. So Russia is probably the best choice. IIRC both have about 60 subs and Russia is back at their post-1991 strength. See the recent WaPo article about them mapping undersea cables.

How do you know North Korea has no SLBMs? They seem to be making good progress recently.

Re: Where to hide your nuclear missile submarine?

#45

Post by pps43 »

avar wrote: post #26
pps43 wrote: post #25

If you detect a massive ICBM launch from Russia, you know what to do - nuke Russia. You have half an hour to launch before Russian missiles take out all silos. Now what do you do if you detect SLBM launch from somewhere in the Pacific Ocean? Who do you nuke?

The US is peculiar with its nuclear policy in trying to guarantee immediate response, by contrast say the UK only has nuclear submarines at sea, and it's expected that there'll be nothing like an immediate response, rather the captains of those submarines will find out who nuked the UK and respond. So the answer for deterrence purposes is you don't need to nuke anyone right away, immediate response is only one layer…

If you rely only on submarines for deterrence then you don't need satellites detecting launches in the first place. I don't think UK or France have (or need) that capability.

Re: Where to hide your nuclear missile submarine?

#46

Post by ashwinm »

pps43 wrote: post #44
nasredin wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only openly hostile country with SLBMs is Russia. So Russia is probably the best choice. IIRC both have about 60 subs and Russia is back at their post-1991 strength. See the recent WaPo article about them mapping undersea cables.

How do you know North Korea has no SLBMs? They seem to be making good progress recently.

Because it's way harder to make a SSBN.

Re: Where to hide your nuclear missile submarine?

#47

Post by gusfoo »

izacus wrote: post #40
nasredin wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only openly hostile country with SLBMs is Russia. So Russia is probably the best choice. IIRC both have about 60 subs and Russia is back at their post-1991 strength. See the recent WaPo article about them mapping undersea cables.

Russia is hostile? By what metric?

> Russia is hostile? By what metric?

Would the metric of having invaded two sovereign nations in the last few years count?

Re: Where to hide your nuclear missile submarine?

#48

Post by gumby »

pps43 wrote: post #44
nasredin wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only openly hostile country with SLBMs is Russia. So Russia is probably the best choice. IIRC both have about 60 subs and Russia is back at their post-1991 strength. See the recent WaPo article about them mapping undersea cables.

How do you know North Korea has no SLBMs? They seem to be making good progress recently.

I don’t think Norks has any functioning subs at the moment, and certainly nothing of the size to hold an SLBM.

Re: Where to hide your nuclear missile submarine?

#49

Post by rurban »

pps43 wrote: post #25

If you detect a massive ICBM launch from Russia, you know what to do - nuke Russia. You have half an hour to launch before Russian missiles take out all silos. Now what do you do if you detect SLBM launch from somewhere in the Pacific Ocean? Who do you nuke?

You cannot nuke anybody, and you have no possibility of defense neither. That's why those cold war nuclear games were over, as soon as the Russian's had their subs, and the US had Incilik.

Re: Where to hide your nuclear missile submarine?

#50

Post by pps43 »

ashwinm wrote: post #46
pps43 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you know North Korea has no SLBMs? They seem to be making good progress recently.

Because it's way harder to make a SSBN.

A year ago few people believed North Korea can build a hydrogen bomb, or an ICBM capable of reaching continental US.
Post reply on HN