Minuteman III Missiles Are Too Old to Upgrade Anymore

submitted by jet199 from military.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]no_u 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

It's partial sarcasm. The US has 450 functional nuclear ICBMs that could wipe out numerous cities, and they plan to make more. So not to worry about the current, recently updated ICBMs. There will be more.

[–]binaryblob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Perhaps I missed MAD class, but shouldn't any MAD strategy destroy every other country in the world, including that of your allies? It seems like the US only has missiles pointed at Russia and China, which is strategically stupid.

[–]weavilsatemyface 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

shouldn't any MAD strategy destroy every other country in the world, including that of your allies?

"If you threaten us, we'll kill our friends!"

That's a good way to not have any friends left. Unless you're Israel.

[–]binaryblob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

In international politics friends don't exist in extreme scenarios like ultimate survival. What makes you think they do?

[–]weavilsatemyface 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

In international politics friends don't exist in extreme scenarios like ultimate survival.

MAD has existed for something like seventy years now. Are you saying that none of the USA, USSR, China, Britain, France, India, Pakistan, Israel or North Korea have had even a single friend (or ally if you prefer) during the entire seven decades of MAD?

You need to think this through a little more carefully. India and Pakistan have sufficient nuclear weapons to guarantee MAD between the two of them. Suppose Pakistan threatens India. Why would India respond by launching their nuclear weapons at Burma, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, China, the closest US naval fleet etc? How is that supposed to deter Pakistan? It just leaves fewer missiles to fire at Pakistan, increasing Pakistan's odds of surviving the counter-attack. And increasing the odds that China and the US will in turn attack India.

Same applies to the USA. Why would the US waste their nuclear arsenal firing missiles at Mexico and Canada if they are threatened by Russia? What possible benefit would they gain?

[–]binaryblob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

MAD has existed for something like seventy years now. Are you saying that none of the USA, USSR, China, Britain, France, India, Pakistan, Israel or North Korea have had even a single friend (or ally if you prefer) during the entire seven decades of MAD?

That is exactly what I am saying.

Why would the US waste their nuclear arsenal firing missiles at Mexico and Canada if they are threatened by Russia? What possible benefit would they gain?

In principle any country could just spread a large part of their population across the globe and arm them in secret. Then, when the bombs start flying they could just wait until the US has used up all their nukes and attack the country that hasn't been nuked yet. Presumably, there would be some technology to clean up the damage of the major nuclear exchange and presto: you have the Russians still happily living in for example Australia and everyone in the US is dead (because Russia has more nukes). If you take a genetic approach to people, then the Russian genes would survive and over time dominate the planet. It's a long play for world domination, but certainly possible. A true MAD strategy should therefor not just kill some people, but everyone with a genetic relationship to your enemy including those in your own borders.

During the Cold War globalization wasn't really a thing. Now, you would have more Russians in Thailand than Thai (probably a slight exaggeration). What is considered MAD should be updated, but I guess everyone is an idiot on this planet.

The flaw in your argument is that you assume there will always be a shortage of nukes, which is exactly why I am saying you would need an overkill amount of them deployed, not just on some shelf. I think Russia could in theory surprise the US with a secret nuclear shield of their own as well. Either Putin is just bluffing or he has something the US doesn't know that they have.

[–]weavilsatemyface 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

In principle any country could just spread a large part of their population across the globe and arm them in secret. Then, when the bombs start flying they could just wait until the US has used up all their nukes and attack the country that hasn't been nuked yet.

You surely aren't serious. Are you getting your understanding of MAD and international politics from Dr Evil?

Presumably, there would be some technology to clean up the damage of the major nuclear exchange

Yeah, a quick spray of "Free & Clear", wipe down with a rag, and Bob's yer auntie 🙄

the Russian genes would survive and over time dominate the planet.

https://files.catbox.moe/riux8b.gif

you would have more Russians in Thailand than Thai (probably a slight exaggeration).

Ya think???