Read the news today, crapped my pants a little.

[Tom Sawyer]

Going first limits the damage of the retaliatory strike. If the Russians launch 100 nukes instead of 1000, they have to choose targets instead of not bothering to choose targets. Idaho might be OK in this scenario and the surviving Americans wouldn't need to worry about potato shortages on top of everything else.

If the Americans feel that Russia is about to launch and they need to make a choice between the two nightmare scenarios of "Our country is about to be destroyed and the survivors won't have enough potatoes to eat" and "Our country is about to be destroyed, but we can probably save the potato industry", then obviously it's in their interest to choose the latter. It's the least bad of two terrible situations and they have the potential to save something.
It does not, however, give them enough of an advantage to factor into planning that a first strike is a viable military option since better first strike capabilities does not mean that MAD no longer applies, it just means that the D is slightly smaller.

If the Americans feel? Well this alone should make russians feel compelled to strike first and you to crap your pants.
I am sorry but I don't feel you have adequate excuse for development first strike capabilities.

Are you serious? I have difficulty reading that as a serious response.

If you feel that a nuclear strike is imminent and your choices are:

A) Get hit by 1000 nuclear weapons
B) Get hit by 100 nuclear weapons

Is there any reason that you would not do what you can to ensure B?

I mean, the rationale as to why militaries develop first strike capabilities, even when they don't actually plan to strike first without provocation, are so trivially obvious that they're not even worth listing out.

Do you think that Russians don't warplan out first strike scenarios and develop technologies to allow them to better do it? Even Canada thinks up first strike plans in the event that they're needed - sure, those plans tend to consist of "Find out where Bob parked the tank and get someone to fill it up with gas before we drive into Buffalo, New York to take over", but we still have those plans.

I really just don't get your question.

 

[barbos]

If the Americans feel? Well this alone should make russians feel compelled to strike first and you to crap your pants.
I am sorry but I don't feel you have adequate excuse for development first strike capabilities.

Are you serious? I have difficulty reading that as a serious response.

If you feel that a nuclear strike is imminent and your choices are:

A) Get hit by 1000 nuclear weapons
B) Get hit by 100 nuclear weapons

Is there any reason that you would not do what you can to ensure B?

I mean, the rationale as to why militaries develop first strike capabilities, even when they don't actually plan to strike first without provocation, are so trivially obvious that they're not even worth listing out.

Do you think that Russians don't warplan out first strike scenarios and develop technologies to allow them to better do it?

It's a known fact that they don't, russian plan is MAD alone. Also it's a known fact that US have been working on first strike from the day one.

Even Canada thinks up first strike plans in the event that they're needed - sure, those plans tend to consist of "Find out where Bob parked the tank and get someone to fill it up with gas before we drive into Buffalo, New York to take over", but we still have those plans.

I really just don't get your question.

Let me dumb it down to you. Do you think first strike capabilities make US and the world safer? correct answer is "No" the reason is well explained in the article. Now the question, why are US making themselves less safe?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If the Americans feel? Well this alone should make russians feel compelled to strike first and you to crap your pants.
I am sorry but I don't feel you have adequate excuse for development first strike capabilities.

Are you serious? I have difficulty reading that as a serious response.

If you feel that a nuclear strike is imminent and your choices are:

A) Get hit by 1000 nuclear weapons
B) Get hit by 100 nuclear weapons

Is there any reason that you would not do what you can to ensure B?

I mean, the rationale as to why militaries develop first strike capabilities, even when they don't actually plan to strike first without provocation, are so trivially obvious that they're not even worth listing out.

Do you think that Russians don't warplan out first strike scenarios and develop technologies to allow them to better do it? Even Canada thinks up first strike plans in the event that they're needed - sure, those plans tend to consist of "Find out where Bob parked the tank and get someone to fill it up with gas before we drive into Buffalo, New York to take over", but we still have those plans.

I really just don't get your question.

Why even bother. You wouldn't get pass the Tim Hortons in Buffalo. Why do you think we built so many at the crossings?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

It's a known fact that they don't, russian plan is MAD alone. Also it's a known fact that US have been working on first strike from the day one.

Again, I have to ask if you're being serious. Here's the result of a 15 second google search with a quote from Putin from a few years back about the development of first strike capabilities.

http://archive.larouchepac.com/node/27054

Furthermore, there has been increasing talk among military analysts about the theoretical possibility of a first disarming, disabling strike, even against nuclear powers. This is something that we also need to take into account in our plans for developing the armed forces

If you're not willing to devote 15 seconds to your position, don't try and come across as an expert about your position.

Even absent that, say that you're a Russian general. You're thinking about what to do in the event of a nuclear war. Knowing that the Americans can take out a lot of your land-based capabilities with their weapons, do you:

A) Come up with a plan which involves launching those missiles before the Americans can launch their own to destroy them
B) Do literally anything else

If you pick A, you are coming up with a first strike plan. If you don't pick A, you need to resign because you're a truly shitty general.

Now, it's true that the Russian plans for first strikes don't include as much of the ability to destroy or disable American weapons as the US ones do, but that's a technological limitation due to the fact that the Russian military budget is about 10% of the US budget, so they can't expend the same level of resources to research and develop super weapons.

Let me dumb it down to you. Do you think first strike capabilities make US and the world safer? correct answer is "No" the reason is well explained in the article. Now the question, why are US making themselves less safe?

Of course they're making themselves less safe. That goes back to the whole "The Americans are idiots" part of the conversation. Their actions make a MAD scenario more likely. My entire argument is that it doesn't somehow get them out of a MAD scenario and into a "Russia is destroyed and the US is OK" scenario which would make a first strike a viable choice in any situation other than one where the only other choice is to strike second.

- - - Updated - - -

Are you serious? I have difficulty reading that as a serious response.

If you feel that a nuclear strike is imminent and your choices are:

A) Get hit by 1000 nuclear weapons
B) Get hit by 100 nuclear weapons

Is there any reason that you would not do what you can to ensure B?

I mean, the rationale as to why militaries develop first strike capabilities, even when they don't actually plan to strike first without provocation, are so trivially obvious that they're not even worth listing out.

Do you think that Russians don't warplan out first strike scenarios and develop technologies to allow them to better do it? Even Canada thinks up first strike plans in the event that they're needed - sure, those plans tend to consist of "Find out where Bob parked the tank and get someone to fill it up with gas before we drive into Buffalo, New York to take over", but we still have those plans.

I really just don't get your question.

Why even bother. You wouldn't get pass the Tim Hortons in Buffalo. Why do you think we built so many at the crossings?

You sneaky little fuckers. Now I have to fly up to Ottawa and think up an entirely new war plan.

Thanks for ruining my weekend, dickhead.

 

[funinspace]

On the positive side, a 1,000+ nuclear warheads blowing the shit out of the world should end the concerns about Global Warming.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

On the positive side, a 1,000+ nuclear warheads blowing the shit out of the world should end the concerns about Global Warming.

End the concerns about pretty much everything, really. It is nice to see that some of us can still see the glass as half full, though.

 

[funinspace]

On the positive side, a 1,000+ nuclear warheads blowing the shit out of the world should end the concerns about Global Warming.

End the concerns about pretty much everything, really. It is nice to see that some of us can still see the glass as half full, though.

Not really the end of concerns about everything. People in Tazmania and Comodoro Rivadavia would probably survive with modest increases in various cancers, but should be able to continue procreating, even if they have to start living like it is 1883.

And think, they would no longer have to hear about that crazy American SCROTUS.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Are you serious? I have difficulty reading that as a serious response.

It is curious, isn't it?
The US develops weapons that some people think may be useful as first strike weapons, which does not exactly equate to a first-strike policy, and that makes him crap his pants.
But THE GUY with his finger on THE BUTTON announces that nuclear war has started, and that's not scary.

Cue Bert and Ernie singing 'one of these things is not like the other...'

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Are you serious? I have difficulty reading that as a serious response.

It is curious, isn't it?
The US develops weapons that some people think may be useful as first strike weapons, which does not exactly equate to a first-strike policy, and that makes him crap his pants.
But THE GUY with his finger on THE BUTTON announces that nuclear war has started, and that's not scary.

Ah, it seems you're not reading the responses through the "US = Evil, Russia = Good" filter they're meant to be read through.

 

[Elixir]

... the problem is that the Russian military has a bunch of idiots who've been promoted to generals.

We're on target to reach parity in that regard - especially if Cheato can get any of his intellectual peers promoted.

 

[J842P]

Well, if someone has 200 nuclear missiles and your first strike knocks out 180 of them, you just committed suicide for your entire country by launching that first strike. If someone has 5 and you knock out 4, you just sacrificed one of your largest cities by launching that first strike and whatever dumb-assed and pathetic goals you had for starting that war, they weren't worth the loss of that city. If you don't have 100% certainty of taking out all their nukes, you don't launch a first strike against a nuclear power.

The only value there is to a nuclear weapon is the deterrent effect it has against other people with nuclear weapons.

Who is to say whether or not a city is worth some goal?

 

[J842P]

Why do americans bother with first strike capabilities?

To be scary.
Hopefully scary enough to prevent the threat of nuclear war.

The only thing that prevented full nuclear war has been dumb fucking luck.

 

[Keith&Co.]

To be scary.
Hopefully scary enough to prevent the threat of nuclear war.

The only thing that prevented full nuclear war has been dumb fucking luck.

I don't think that's the ONLY thing... But it is a crucial part of the equation.

 

[J842P]

The only thing that prevented full nuclear war has been dumb fucking luck.

I don't think that's the ONLY thing... But it is a crucial part of the equation.

No, I think the 20th century can essentially be summarized as insane baby boomers taking us to the brink of nuclear war because they are fucking nuts. I should add, although this is related to luck, but another thing preventing nuclear war has been a handful of sane men, among them John F. Kennedy, who refused to listen to the generals, who would have had us initiate a first-strike against Russia and China decades ago.

 

[bilby]

A strange thread.

The only winning move is not to post.

How about a nice game of chess?

 

[Terrell]

A strange thread.

The only winning move is not to post.

How about a nice game of chess?

Nice War Games reference.

 

[barbos]

Of course they're making themselves less safe. That goes back to the whole "The Americans are idiots" part of the conversation. Their actions make a MAD scenario more likely. My entire argument is that it doesn't somehow get them out of a MAD scenario and into a "Russia is destroyed and the US is OK" scenario which would make a first strike a viable choice in any situation other than one where the only other choice is to strike second.

I am glad you agree with authors that US desire to have first strike capability could get us all killed. Hence american generals are more stupid than the russian ones.

 

[barbos]

To be scary.
Hopefully scary enough to prevent the threat of nuclear war.

The only thing that prevented full nuclear war has been dumb fucking luck.

And we need whole lot more of it now.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well, if someone has 200 nuclear missiles and your first strike knocks out 180 of them, you just committed suicide for your entire country by launching that first strike. If someone has 5 and you knock out 4, you just sacrificed one of your largest cities by launching that first strike and whatever dumb-assed and pathetic goals you had for starting that war, they weren't worth the loss of that city. If you don't have 100% certainty of taking out all their nukes, you don't launch a first strike against a nuclear power.

The only value there is to a nuclear weapon is the deterrent effect it has against other people with nuclear weapons.

Who is to say whether or not a city is worth some goal?

Donald Trump.

Seriously. That's who gets to say.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Why do americans bother with first strike capabilities?

If anyone has first strike capability it's Russia. Missiles that aren't ready to go very promptly are pretty much only first strike weapons these days. (In the old days they were in silos tough enough they very well might survive the incoming strike. Missiles are accurate enough these days that this is no longer an important factor.)

Your R-36 and it's RS-28 replacement are liquid fueled. The UR-100N is liquid fueled and has a prep time of 25 minutes. The latter is only a first strike weapon, the former are probably first strike weapons. You also have the solid fueled RT-2PM, RT-2UTTH and RS-24 mobile missiles which are marginally second-strike weapons--since they don't have silos they're much, much more vulnerable and very well might be killed by a reasonably distant airburst.

Contrast that with our LGM-30, solid fueled and thus a second strike weapon.

Sub-launched missiles are pretty much always second-strike although they can be used in a depressed trajectory mode for a decapitation shot.