I heard that a missile strike on a military satellite, or the

File: image.png (358KB, 960x914px) Image search: [Google]

358KB, 960x914px

>>32114177
Faggot

I don't know.

>>32114177
I heard OP is a faggot.

Is there any truth to this?

Can you repeat the question?

File: 1524567_780054012088440_1338103701758934423_n.jpg (9KB, 150x225px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 150x225px

>>32114177

Not sure.

>>32114177
What happens if 2 nukes detonate simultaneously?

>>32114177
>I heard that [X] demands an immediate nuclear retaliatory response.
An immediate nuclear retaliation is only reasonable when it looks like your opponent is already launching nuclear strategic weapons at you or preparing to do so immediately. All other scenarios will invite a retaliation, but it won't be nuclear until and unless a few rounds of unchecked escalation happen. No President wants to be the one that causes nuclear war over a situation that could be handled with normal military/diplomatic tools.

>a missile strike on a military satellite
Depends. If they appear to be targeting the specific Sats that are involved in nuke-related strategic communications, nuclear launch site monitoring, or anything else that would remove the USA's ability to detect and respond to an enemy launch, it would appear like a preliminary move in a nuclear strike. This could result in immediate launch, especially if the adversary takes out a bunch of those systems in a short time. Other Sats? Not so much. USA would be pissed and some kind of retaliation would be inevitable, but immediate nuclear retaliation would be retarded so they'll try other options first.

>the sinking of an aircraft carrier
Lmao no. It would sure cause a shitstorm of a war though, and that war might have the potential to escalate to the nuclear level... eventually. Ignore the children who think the launch of a MRBM/ASBM like DF-21D from coastal artillery units would be confused with a nuclear ICBM launch. There's enough radar and optical systems watching adversaries to tell the difference within minutes.

continued

File: spike eating.gif (326KB, 500x269px) Image search: [Google]

326KB, 500x269px

>>32114976

>>32114976
>or the sinking of a boomer sub
Now this one is hairy. Sinking a boomer is something you do to degrade the enemy's second-strike capability. It's the kind of thing an enemy would do right before launching an all-out first strike. However, merely losing a boomer doesn't mean an enemy actually sunk your boomer. One could be lost to mishap. Multiple boomers disappearing in a short time, especially if they can communicate their situation before they get killed, might result in launch.

>It is to be treated as a strategic WMD strike on US soil.
Only a strategic WMD strike on US soil will be treated as a strategic WMD strike on US soil.


If you would like to learn more there's a ton of publications regarding the science of deterrence. Kahn's "On Thermonuclear War" is a good one, if a bit dense.

>>32115000
Some more regarding the "lost boomer(s)" situation: even if the adversary sinks your second-strike assets, it may be worth not launching land-based missiles. As long as the US' ability to detect and categorize launches around the globe remains intact, a president may wish to keep the land-based ICBMs ready to go in their silos. Why? Because now if your enemy wants to not get their cities glassed, they have to expend most of their ICBMs taking out your ICBMs in a counter-force strike. Any ICBM targeted at your missiles is an ICBM not targeted at a city in a countervalue strike. This especially applies to the USA, since it has the systems in place to detect an enemy launch and send their own missiles in a massive countervalue strike before the enemy first-strike arrives.

>>32114976
>>32115000

Supporting this.

You could also read Deterrence by Lawrence Freedman.

>>32114976
>>32114177

We have systems that can usually determine if an in-flight long-range missile has a nuclear warhead.

>>32115152
How? I thought they could only determine trajectory. I don't even know if it's possible to determine payload from far away.

>>32115306
Radar penetration.

Isotope detection.

I've seen articles about it, but I could be completely fucking wrong because I don't have the time to look it up right now.

Try it and find out.
Sincerely,
America