Are we headed to WW3?

[Elixir]

I actually think that it is ironically China that is preventing Russia from attacking Nato and/or using a battlefield nuke in Ukraine.

Quite possibly; However I would like to think that the British and/or French would have quietly made clear to Moscow that any use of nuclear weapons would be responded to in kind.

Under any other Presudent, I would have expected the USA to do likewise. But the US is not the only nation with the capability to nuke Moscow.

I think China already has orbiting nukes they could de-orbit if needed.

 

[bilby]

I think China already has orbiting nukes they could de-orbit if needed.

I find that implausible. It would be a breach of Article IV of the Outer Space Treaty, and one with a high risk of detection (particularly in the event of a failed launch attempt - radioactive materials are very easy to detect and trace).

It would also be a tough engineering challenge to build a nuke that could remain in orbit for any significant length of time, and remain reliable. And any in-orbit maintenance would require highly visible and highly expensive crewed missions.

And jumping all of those hurdles only leaves you with a minuscule fractional advantage in a first-strike (and while there is a second-strike advantage, it's easier to use submarines to ensure it); If China wants to nuke someone, they can do it with ground (or submarine) launched ballistic missiles at far lower cost, and without breaking any international treaties in the build up.

There's really nothing a space based nuke can do, tactically or stategically, that a submarine based one cannot; And while it is true that in space nobody can hear you scream, it is also true that in space there is nowhere to hide.

The US (and UK, France, Russia, and probably dozens of other countries) know what satellites everyone has launched, and what orbits they are in. They don't necessarily know what each has on board, but it's highly unlikely that any have WMDs, and an absolute certainty that if a WMD were deployed by a satellite, all those nations would know right away whose it was.

At least with a submarine launched missile it would potentially be difficult for the victim to be sure exactly who had attacked them (though even there there are ways to work it out).

 

[thebeave]

I think China already has orbiting nukes they could de-orbit if needed.

I find that implausible. It would be a breach of Article IV of the Outer Space Treaty, and one with a high risk of detection (particularly in the event of a failed launch attempt - radioactive materials are very easy to detect and trace).

It would also be a tough engineering challenge to build a nuke that could remain in orbit for any significant length of time, and remain reliable. And any in-orbit maintenance would require highly visible and highly expensive crewed missions.

And jumping all of those hurdles only leaves you with a minuscule fractional advantage in a first-strike (and while there is a second-strike advantage, it's easier to use submarines to ensure it); If China wants to nuke someone, they can do it with ground (or submarine) launched ballistic missiles at far lower cost, and without breaking any international treaties in the build up.

There's really nothing a space based nuke can do, tactically or stategically, that a submarine based one cannot; And while it is true that in space nobody can hear you scream, it is also true that in space there is nowhere to hide.

The US (and UK, France, Russia, and probably dozens of other countries) know what satellites everyone has launched, and what orbits they are in. They don't necessarily know what each has on board, but it's highly unlikely that any have WMDs, and an absolute certainty that if a WMD were deployed by a satellite, all those nations would know right away whose it was.

At least with a submarine launched missile it would potentially be difficult for the victim to be sure exactly who had attacked them (though even there there are ways to work it out).

As someone who spent about 10 years right out of college working in the engineering department of the prime contractor for US submarine launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), I approve of this message. In particular, the Trident II is truly the ultimate modern doomsday machine.

 

[Elixir]

in space there is nowhere to hide.

From what? Does the US have the ability to pick off orbiting items?
I thought I read that China had, or was developing such capability, but not “the west”.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I actually think that it is ironically China that is preventing Russia from attacking Nato and/or using a battlefield nuke in Ukraine.

Quite possibly; However I would like to think that the British and/or French would have quietly made clear to Moscow that any use of nuclear weapons would be responded to in kind.

Under any other Presudent, I would have expected the USA to do likewise. But the US is not the only nation with the capability to nuke Moscow.

Or, this is like Iraq where Russia is no where near the stable military force it claims and most of its lethal stuff is useless, and they bluff to keep others into allowing them to think they should be listened to. Sometimes the reason someone doesn't do something is simply because they can't.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

in space there is nowhere to hide.

From what? Does the US have the ability to pick off orbiting items?
I thought I read that China had, or was developing such capability, but not “the west”.

The question is, "What is the benefit?" Stealthy subs can go anywhere, launch by the shoreline, and sneak away. Why in the world would you put a nuclear weapon into orbit? What does that gain you relative to what the risk is? Every rocket that launches is a non-zero chance of blowing up.

Subs are much cheaper than an orbital platform, readily accessible. The only potential issue is the US might have a sonar setup in the Pacific as good as the Atlantic. China likely doesn't want to war with Taiwan. It'll cost too much money. China doesn't want nukes flying into South Korea either. China just wants Taiwan. And that takes time. China have been around long enough to accept time being a thing.

Right now, the US is teetering towards a global showdown in the Middle East/Africa simply by accident, because the people running the Administration are the dumbest people ever allowed to run the US government, by a long shot.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

World War 3. Currently there are three flashpoints that could lead to it, and two of them are already flashing. I am referring to Ukraine-Russia and Israel-Iran. The third is currently quiet, Taiwan-China.

The comparison to WWI is a good one, because it was caused by a chain of alliances until the major powers were fighting each other. A Serb killed an Austrian duke. and the English were in France fighting the Germans.

Declining empires tend to wage foolish wars. The US is in that state. If the US directed US or NATO troops to Ukraine that would be all that is needed. Worse would be if the Israel-Iran connection led to WW3 because it could result in a general Middle-East vs. Europe conflict. There's already some discord in Europe between the native population and the Islamic immigrants.

If the US actually decides to land troops in Iran, that would be a disaster. Right now we're "merely" bombing them. We just remembered the 25th anniversary of 9/11, declared to be the worst attack in US history. We visit that upon other countries regularly. It's sad, really.

When all else fails, they they never fail to take everyone to war.

You voted for this idiot three times!

 

[Elixir]

Every rocket that launches is a non-zero chance of blowing up.

Every sub has a non-zero chance of sinking…

Subs are much cheaper than an orbital platform, readily accessible.

^ That is the best point, but …

The only potential issue is the US might have a sonar setup in the Pacific as good as the Atlantic.

Since the early 80s there have been TEF (time/energy/frequency) devices deployed in all our oceans. This was very secret tech when it was deployed, but by now it’s probably FAR beyond the astonishing capabilities it had back then.

The audio engineer who built my studio, was among the first licensed civilian users. When he was trained, he stayed in some secret location in the Nevada desert from which he and about a dozen others were daily transported to and from the training location in a windowless van. The device itself was configured to fit in a torpedo tube…
When it was set up in my studio space, it created a 3-D picture of all the space’s surfaces, showing what frequencies were returned from which direction after how many milliseconds, and the absorption characteristics of every surface, giving clear indication of how to modify the space for “ideal” audio qualities.
(The audio guy went on to design the currently used audio systems for Tthe US Senate and HoR chambers, several Disneyland locations, Camden Yards and other sports venues.) In his words, none of those jobs used more than “the very tip of the spear”. I took that to imply that the tech went WAY beyond what was applied there.
That was decades ago.

I’m pretty sure that the US and probably other militaries know a whole lot more about whose machines are doing what and where in the oceans, than we might suspect.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

World War 3. Currently there are three flashpoints that could lead to it, and two of them are already flashing. I am referring to Ukraine-Russia and Israel-Iran. The third is currently quiet, Taiwan-China.

The comparison to WWI is a good one, because it was caused by a chain of alliances until the major powers were fighting each other. A Serb killed an Austrian duke. and the English were in France fighting the Germans.

Declining empires tend to wage foolish wars. The US is in that state. If the US directed US or NATO troops to Ukraine that would be all that is needed. Worse would be if the Israel-Iran connection led to WW3 because it could result in a general Middle-East vs. Europe conflict. There's already some discord in Europe between the native population and the Islamic immigrants.

If the US actually decides to land troops in Iran, that would be a disaster. Right now we're "merely" bombing them. We just remembered the 25th anniversary of 9/11, declared to be the worst attack in US history. We visit that upon other countries regularly. It's sad, really.

When all else fails, they they never fail to take everyone to war.

You voted for this idiot three times!

The personal responsibility people never take responsibility.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

World War 3. Currently there are three flashpoints that could lead to it, and two of them are already flashing. I am referring to Ukraine-Russia and Israel-Iran. The third is currently quiet, Taiwan-China.

The comparison to WWI is a good one, because it was caused by a chain of alliances until the major powers were fighting each other. A Serb killed an Austrian duke. and the English were in France fighting the Germans.

Declining empires tend to wage foolish wars. The US is in that state. If the US directed US or NATO troops to Ukraine that would be all that is needed. Worse would be if the Israel-Iran connection led to WW3 because it could result in a general Middle-East vs. Europe conflict. There's already some discord in Europe between the native population and the Islamic immigrants.

If the US actually decides to land troops in Iran, that would be a disaster. Right now we're "merely" bombing them. We just remembered the 25th anniversary of 9/11, declared to be the worst attack in US history. We visit that upon other countries regularly. It's sad, really.

When all else fails, they they never fail to take everyone to war.

You voted for this idiot three times!

The personal responsibility people never take responsibility.

RVonse is the anti-establishment guy. He voted for a conman, business fraud to drain the swamp.

Sometimes you need to do something incredibly stupid to do something correctly!

 

[TomC]

Xi has to be sitting back laughing.
Putin and Trump are softening up the rest of the world. Militarily, economically, strategically, everything. Few more years and and he'll have the old superpowers begging him for another chance...
Tom

 

[Elixir]

Sometimes you need to do something incredibly stupid to do something correctly!

Is that a quote ftom The Libberpublican Bible?

 

[bilby]

I actually think that it is ironically China that is preventing Russia from attacking Nato and/or using a battlefield nuke in Ukraine.

Quite possibly; However I would like to think that the British and/or French would have quietly made clear to Moscow that any use of nuclear weapons would be responded to in kind.

Under any other Presudent, I would have expected the USA to do likewise. But the US is not the only nation with the capability to nuke Moscow.

Or, this is like Iraq where Russia is no where near the stable military force it claims and most of its lethal stuff is useless, and they bluff to keep others into allowing them to think they should be listened to. Sometimes the reason someone doesn't do something is simply because they can't.

Certainly it is plausible that Putin's restraint is partly from fear of the consequences if he tries to nuke Ukraine and the warhead simply fails to go off.

 

[bilby]

Every sub has a non-zero chance of sinking…

Sure, but when they do, they stay hidden, as does their armament.

A satellite launch with a nuclear weapons payload sprays tell-tale radioactive tracers around for all to detect. Satellites aren't stealthy. Everyone can see them. Everyone sees what they do.

A Chinese sub could nuke Pearl Harbor and claim that the North Koreans, Russians, Iranians, or French did it. They can't do that with a satellite nuke.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think China already has orbiting nukes they could de-orbit if needed.

I find that implausible. It would be a breach of Article IV of the Outer Space Treaty, and one with a high risk of detection (particularly in the event of a failed launch attempt - radioactive materials are very easy to detect and trace).

It would also be a tough engineering challenge to build a nuke that could remain in orbit for any significant length of time, and remain reliable. And any in-orbit maintenance would require highly visible and highly expensive crewed missions.

And jumping all of those hurdles only leaves you with a minuscule fractional advantage in a first-strike (and while there is a second-strike advantage, it's easier to use submarines to ensure it); If China wants to nuke someone, they can do it with ground (or submarine) launched ballistic missiles at far lower cost, and without breaking any international treaties in the build up.

There is one mission that is best done with an orbital nuke: A gigaton exploded in low orbit basically takes out everything to the horizon--and from up there the horizon is very far away.

But you are right about all the headaches. You build your bomb but you don't launch it. Then you do something like put up another module on your space station when you're planning to use it.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Xi has to be sitting back laughing.
Putin and Trump are softening up the rest of the world. Militarily, economically, strategically, everything. Few more years and and he'll have the old superpowers begging him for another chance...
Tom

They're powerful enough to grab the brass ring, but they won't be able to hold it.

 

[Tigers!]

Every sub has a non-zero chance of sinking…

Sure, but when they do, they stay hidden, as does their armament.

A satellite launch with a nuclear weapons payload sprays tell-tale radioactive tracers around for all to detect. Satellites aren't stealthy. Everyone can see them. Everyone sees what they do.

A Chinese sub could nuke Pearl Harbor and claim that the North Koreans, Russians, Iranians, or French did it. They can't do that with a satellite nuke.

I'd certainly suspect the French 1st from that list of Ne'er-do-wells.

 

[Elixir]

A satellite launch with a nuclear weapons payload sprays tell-tale radioactive tracers around for all to detect.

Are you saying that a ground based sensor could sense out any kind of radioactive payload and determine its capability and purpose, all by analyzing its radioactive products? Or just that someone shot something dirty into space?

 

[bilby]

A satellite launch with a nuclear weapons payload sprays tell-tale radioactive tracers around for all to detect.

Are you saying that a ground based sensor could sense out any kind of radioactive payload and determine its capability and purpose, all by analyzing its radioactive products? Or just that someone shot something dirty into space?

I was talking about a failed launch - which is a non-trivial possibility.

A successful launch would not be known to carry WMDs (barring other intelligence sources) until they were deployed - but when deployed, there would be no hiding who is responsible.

 

[TomC]

Xi has to be sitting back laughing.
Putin and Trump are softening up the rest of the world. Militarily, economically, strategically, everything. Few more years and and he'll have the old superpowers begging him for another chance...
Tom

They're powerful enough to grab the brass ring, but they won't be able to hold it.

What makes you think that? I see absolutely no reason.
Tom