51–60 of 64 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
What I'm pointing out is that you've conflated two things. Just because one aspect of your deterrence is the ability to launch your land-based ICBMs within 30 minutes, that doesn't mean that the inability to do so (e.g. because you don't know who struck you) means that you're out of options.
Besides, there's no way someone could amass enough SLBMs in the Pacific to take out two aspects of the US's nuclear triad without the US knowing who owns those submarines.
"Asking for a friend."
In fairness, nothing ruins Christmas faster than the kids stumbling across the nuclear missile submarine you bought them.
Naturally in school we were rehearsing in case of a strike but very few fallout shelters existed so we improved our response time for getting in position safely underneath our desks.
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?
Where formerly the right harboured the deepest suspicions of Russia, the liberals have taken over the position, probably as a scapegoat for political retreats.
Posts on HN such as yours and probably mine will turn gray-white fast since if you haven't sufficiently disavowed Goldstein then you are probably a collaborator.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
That's not how it works. The US also relies on the ability to promptly respond to a first strike, which say the UK does not. What I'm pointing out is that you've conflated two things. Just because one aspect of your deterrence is the ability to launch your land-based ICBMs within 30 minutes, that doesn't mean that the inability to do so (e.g. because you don't know who struck you) means that you're out of options. Be…
With SLBMs you have other options. You can have your attack submarine shadowing enemy's ballistic missile submarine, or surface ASW ships patrolling the area that can detect the first launch and try to sink the ballistic missile submarine before it can launch its remaining missiles.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t think Norks has any functioning subs at the moment, and certainly nothing of the size to hold an SLBM.
They have 20 Romeo-class submarines, and can probably modify some of those to launch a relatively small ballistic missile.
Second observation: Wikipedia says "Range: 14,484km (9,000 miles) at 9 knots".
Great circle distance from Pyongyang to Lima is 10,100 miles. http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=ZKPY-SPJC&DU=mi . That direct route goes through Utah, so the ocean-only route will be longer.
Pyongyang to Lima via Hilo is 10,550 miles. http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=ZKPY-ITO-SPJC&DU=mi . That's not much longer. Still, it's a reminder that we're talking about a spot almost at the other side of the world from NK.
On the other hand, http://www.russianwarrior.com/STMMain.htm?1947vec_Romeo.htm&... says that the range at snorkel is "7,000 nautical miles at 5 knots" while on the surface it's "16,000 nautical miles at 10 knots". That's 8,000 and 18,000 miles, respectively. Which means about 3,000 miles on the surface (=visible by satellite) followed by the rest at snorkel depth. And a one-way trip.
If I were the US Navy, and saw a NK sub travel towards the Americas for thousands of miles, I think I would keep a close eye on it.
Third observation: The NK Sinpo class submarine appears to have been built to 1) replace the Romeo class subs, and 2) be armed with an KN-11 ballistic missile. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pukkuksong-1 . The longest estimated range for that missile is 2,000-2,500 km . Then again, the submarine itself has an estimated range of only 2,800 km.
The GC distance from Lima to Brownsville, TX is almost 3,000 miles, so well further than NK's relatively small ballistic missile can manage from that gap in US satellite surveillance.
So even if a Romeo-class submarine weren't detected via sonar, and had the range to get to that gap, and were modified to support a submarine-launched ballistic missile, it doesn't seem like that missile could reach the US.
Or, to quote from the last Wikipedia link:
> The Korean People's Navy has no nuclear submarines, and no diesel-electric submarines equipped with air independent propulsion (AIP), so the launch submarine's range (and by extension the missile's) is limited and assuredly prevents it from threatening America's western seaboard.
> Given their submarines' insufficient power to outrun U.S. Navy nuclear attack submarines and lack of aerial and surface coverage to protect them out to long distances, they cannot venture far out to sea, ..
> ... because of its finite power capacity, the sub would have to surface or snorkel for air to recharge its batteries if it remains hiding for an extended period, making it vulnerable to anti-submarine warfare (ASW) efforts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not how it works. The US also relies on the ability to promptly respond to a first strike, which say the UK does not. What I'm pointing out is that you've conflated two things. Just because one aspect of your deterrence is the ability to launch your land-based ICBMs within 30 minutes, that doesn't mean that the inability to do so (e.g. because you don't know who struck you) means that you're out of options. Be…
I was trying to explain why it is more important for the satellites to quickly detect launches from land. With SLBMs you have other options. You can have your attack submarine shadowing enemy's ballistic missile submarine, or surface ASW ships patrolling the area that can detect the first launch and try to sink the ballistic missile submarine before it can launch its remaining missiles.
That's nobody's nuclear posture, it's just a subset of the posture of the US, Russia, China etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In fairness, nothing ruins Christmas faster than the kids stumbling across the nuclear missile submarine you bought them.
OMG OMG DAD AM I GETTING A SUB!!!???
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which rogue nuclear power with active concentration camps do you have in mind? The USA?
I think the person is referring to North Korea - which has active concentration camps.
One problem is that "concentration camp" can mean something like "extermination camp" or something like "internment camp".
The US has a long history of concentration/detainment camps - Native Americans in the 1800s, in the Philippines around 1900, the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII, the recent internments at Guantanamo, Bagram, and likely elsewhere.
Some of those latter ones still exist.
Another issue is that "rogue state" is a controversial term. Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_state :
> Both Noam Chomsky and William Blum have used the term in the title of their respective books to categorise the United States as the biggest rogue state in the world and thereby highlight the irony and hypocrisy implicit in the use of the term by the United States.
When I'm felling cynical, it seems that "rogue state" - as it's used by people in the US - refers to any country not willing to agree to US demands or wishes.
I'm sure the intersection of these is not empty, that is, there are likely many people who regard the US as a rogue state with active concentration camps.