|
PittTheElder posted:Well I'm not positing that one wouldn't respond, the question would be whether to respond this second, or to wait 30 minutes. I guess there would be no reason to not have the subs retaliate immediately, since there's unlikely to be nukes flying at them. I'm more curious as to, if the SU had thrown 400 nukes or whatever it is to try and dig out the silos in the Dakotas, is it better to launch immediately and risk having your birds knocked out during ascent (is this even reasonable given the timelines?) or to sit it out, wait an hour for the dust to settle a little, and then launch everything you have back?
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 06:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 16:04 |
|
|
priznat posted:Man he doesn't want to gently caress his country up even worse than it already is! That'd just be a recipe for disaster even if the other countries just sat back and let it happen. Yes, but he does need a place to send dissidents! You think gulags grow on trees in Siberia?
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 06:28
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:You're literally asking, "what is your country's standing policy for response to a first strike counter-force attack?" Do you understand why the handful of people qualified to answer this question are (except for one man) sworn to secrecy on the matter, and almost certainly do not have accounts on The Something Awful Forums of the Internet? Some information regarding SIOP has been declassified and published (which revealed it to be a largely obsolete plan that continued to target things which had long since been abandoned and over-allocate warheads to single targets), but as for any details concerning OPLAN 8010-12...yeah, no. This writeup is about as close as you're going to get, but consider the source while reading it: http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2010/09/americas-grand-strategy-militarizing.html BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 06:51 on Jan 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 06:46
|
|
|
Well, yes, apparently the SIOP response to a first strike counter-force attack was to gently caress the Communist nations with nuclear fire until the ashes themselves were consumed, but that was the SIOP response to pretty much everything else as well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 06:52
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:You're literally asking, "what is your country's standing policy for response to a first strike counter-force attack?" Do you understand why the handful of people qualified to answer this question are (except for one man) sworn to secrecy on the matter, and almost certainly do not have accounts on The Something Awful Forums of the Internet? Well, s/he's not literally asking that. Much like we are sitting around talking about what the Japanese/Russians/Chinese will do if North Korea decides that XYZ is today's special and everybody gets a serving, it's all hypothetical. Nobody is asking what the US or Japanese or Chinese response plan actually is on paper, and is certainly not (at least, I hope) expecting to get an answer from someone in charge of Pacific military strategy for a real government here on something awful dot com. I read it more like "If it was you, what would you do and why?" or the one that always comes up in this thread, "I've heard that people could do X or Y should Z happen. I don't know which would be better, what do you think?" e: all of which is very different to wandering in and saying "Hey, where are all the F-22s stationed at today?" or "What loadout do the rapid response scramble jets sit on the runway with?" (although I can expect someone asking if that's classifed or not as a preamble), or "Hey, I remember someone in here flies in an AWACS - what kind of ranges/resoultions/frequecies are you guys running with these days? Numbers please." simplefish fucked around with this message at 07:06 on Jan 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 07:03
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:You're literally asking, "what is your country's standing policy for response to a first strike counter-force attack?" Do you understand why the handful of people qualified to answer this question are (except for one man) sworn to secrecy on the matter, and almost certainly do not have accounts on The Something Awful Forums of the Internet? Well yeah, I'm not asking for the US's current nuclear policy guidelines, that's obviously not going to be a thing that's just floating around in the public domain. But I don't know what, if anything, might have been previously declassified, or even just what some reputable academic or retired military guys says the plan should be. I've always imagined that the existence of early warning satellites meant that you wanted to have your finger perched over the big red button to launch immediately in the face of a first strike. But now that I think about it, I suspect a country as well armed as the US would at least have the option of waiting out a first strike before retaliating. On the other hand, there's very few reasons I can think of as to why you would bother to wait.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 07:17
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
If the threat of escalation by the US given it's readiness and posture at the time of event is not enough deterrent for China to not launch ambiguous SLBMs against nominal US allies, then our nuclear weapons strategy will have already failed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 07:17
|
|
|
simplefish posted:Well, s/he's not literally asking that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 07:19
|
|
|
Koesj posted:IIRC launch on warning was pretty quickly dismissed as too dangerous a posture even in the hottest periods of the Cold War. Well isn't the doomsday clock only three minutes before midnight?
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 07:24
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Not really. It's possible to answer strictly from a moral standpoint, ("it is right/wrong to pull the trigger on nuclear war") but that wasn't even the question. Pitt literally asked, "If the SU had thrown 400 nukes or whatever it is to try and dig out the silos in the Dakotas, is it better to launch immediately and risk having your birds knocked out during ascent (is this even reasonable given the timelines?) or to sit it out, wait an hour for the dust to settle a little, and then launch everything you have back?" which is inescapably a tactical question. Answering it with anything other than bullshit flim-flam requires knowing (or being able to reasonably estimate) things like "how survivable are your country's first and second strike systems against a 400 warhead attack?" and again, the people who know things like that aren't going to talk about it. It is a stupid question. Or perhaps he's just wanting to spitball theoreticals amongst airpower nerds?
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 07:39
|
|
|
I always figured the realistic answer was always "stumble around double and triple checking the data until the nukes hit in a combination of standard snafu and not wanting to be the one that ends the human race because the simulation program accidentally got loaded in the computer." I'm hopefully wrong, and I dont expect anyone to tell me if I am, but the US government launching a nuclear response in the time it takes for a missile to get here seems awfully unrealistic. Maybe at the hair trigger height of the cold war when we all figured nuclear war was a "when" not an "if", but it seems barely feasible today.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 07:57
|
|
\
|
Oh Russia... http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/29/world/uk-russia-bombers-intercepted/index.html
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 15:55
|
|
|
Quoting this again, because it cannot be stressed just how good of a report this is in looking at the problem. The level of detail it has is astounding. Actually despite the view some may have Rand Reports are actually really good. There is one on next generation ICBMs they did last year, which after it came out, pretty much ended the idea of doing something other then upgrading the Minuteman III's, but the report looked at everything even mobile basing options. I'll have to dig out the link for it. It's part of the Air Force project.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 16:59
|
|
|
Speaking of documentaries I saw Bitter Lake this week. Which is a 2 hour long BBC documentary that came out very recently and in its core is about the war in Afghanistan but deals with modern society as well. The whole thing is honestly kinda odd yet interesting at the same time. It's very oddly cut and is kind of slow paced at times, not to mention it also feels somewhat scatterbrained for a while as well until you kinda get it. Here's a trailer for it even: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSezzirJs_k
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 20:44
|
|
|
Cooked Auto posted:The whole thing is honestly kinda odd yet interesting at the same time. It's very oddly cut and is kind of slow paced at times, not to mention it also feels somewhat scatterbrained for a while as well until you kinda get it. Yup, that's Adam Curtis. Something of a distinctive style.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
Cooked Auto posted:Speaking of documentaries I saw Bitter Lake this week. Which is a 2 hour long BBC documentary that came out very recently and in its core is about the war in Afghanistan but deals with modern society as well. Just out of curiosity, have you seen "The Power of Nightmares"? I liked that one a lot and I was thinking of watching "Bitter Lake" as well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 21:14
|
|
|
God, I can't stand most of Adam Curtis' stuff. He's seemed to latch onto a method for all his recent documentaries: take a huge, grossly complex issue with dozens of causes, pick one, and bend the rest of the facts to reflect that "main" cause - with Bitter Lake, it seems to be the arrogance of British colonialism (v. quick google).
DrAlexanderTobacco fucked around with this message at 21:33 on Jan 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 21:21
|
|
|
Veritek83 posted:Yup, that's Adam Curtis. Something of a distinctive style. I probably should've mentioned it was him actually at some point. OhYeah posted:Just out of curiosity, have you seen "The Power of Nightmares"? I liked that one a lot and I was thinking of watching "Bitter Lake" as well. I'll keep it in mind for a rainy day. DrAlexanderTobacco posted:God, I can't stand most of Adam Curtis' stuff. He's seemed to latch onto a method for all his recent documentaries: take a huge, grossly complex issue with dozens of causes, pick one, and bend the rest of the facts to reflect that "main" cause - with Bitter Lake, it seems to be the arrogance of British colonialism (v. quick google). Nah with Bitter Lake I think it's less about British colonialism and more about Saudi Arabia and their relation with the West. Or that's at least how I got the impression.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:It's not as bad as you'd think, every so often someone wanders in to make some sick burn against the evil MIC but mostly it's a pretty reasoned discussion of the program.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 01:59
|
|
|
Listening to this debate on nuclear forces and strategy is like listening to a bunch of war nerds discuss battleship tactics in 1939. We live in a country where the economy can be hosed up through greed and hubris and the people who did it are "too big to fail", the financial markets can suffer a flash crash where nobody knows what happened, and the 911 system of the largest city in the country can repeatedly fail for hours on end through sheer loving incompetence on the part of the contractor. Cleansing nuclear fire is still a thing, but cyber is the big elephant in the room nobody really wants to talk about.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 02:12
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:...right now there's a multi-page derail about whether America is really a democracy since you can't get elected President if you're a poor with no connections, and how dare we judge Russia, their system is just as vibrant and open as ours. like half of the posters in that thread are trolling TheFluff fucked around with this message at 02:25 on Jan 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 02:21
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:Cleansing nuclear fire is still a thing, but cyber is the big elephant in the room nobody really wants to talk about.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 02:28
|
|
|
TheFluff posted:like half of the posters in that thread are trolling And the other half are D&D posters incarnate: I don't have a loving clue about the topic, but I would LOOOVE to engage in some unrelated semantic argument. I'm not going to argue that I'm not guilty of the same from time to time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 02:39
|
|
|
Does anyone else hate the word cyber?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 02:43
|
|
|
Dietrich posted:Does anyone else hate the word cyber? I like it but only as a verb  a/s/l?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 03:11
|
|
|
Dietrich posted:Does anyone else hate the word cyber? Its a good indication that the person using it doesn't know anything about computer security.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 03:14
|
|
|
Die Hard 4 isn't real.Dietrich posted:Does anyone else hate the word cyber? I've never seen a job opening with the word "cyber" in it that wasn't either with the government, Lockheed Martin, or Northrop Grumman.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 03:18
|
|
Mortabis posted:Die Hard 4 isn't real. Yeah the F-35 flies in that movie.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 03:20
|
|
|
Computer based attacks on infrastructure has been a thing since at least the 1980s. If you don't think that nation states haven't invested heavily in researching how to cripple each other through various technological means you're deluding yourself.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 03:23
|
|
|
Nobody's saying it's not a thing (stuxnet, for example, was a hell of a thing), just that 'cyber-x' is a really dumbass term for it, typically championed by clueless idiots who think it sounds scary in a 1980s way and wrap their old beige boxes in tinfoil otherwise the Soviets might Hack the Gibson.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 03:32
|
|
hailthefish posted:Nobody's saying it's not a thing (stuxnet, for example, was a hell of a thing), just that 'cyber-x' is a really dumbass term for it, typically championed by clueless idiots who think it sounds scary in a 1980s way and wrap their old beige boxes in tinfoil otherwise the Soviets might Hack the Gibson. I think a lot of fed/mil terms are dumb as poo poo but Cyber is what they decided to go with.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 03:33
|
|
|
sky porn
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 03:41
|
|
|
B4Ctom1 posted:sky porn drat I love the English Electric Lightning 
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 04:11
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:Computer based attacks on infrastructure has been a thing since at least the 1980s. If you don't think that nation states haven't invested heavily in researching how to cripple each other through various technological means you're deluding yourself. Sure, great offense. poo poo defense.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 04:25
|
|
|
simplefish posted:"Hey, I remember someone in here flies in an AWACS - what kind of ranges/resoultions/frequecies are you guys running with these days? Numbers please." Good/bad/121.5 and 243.0 
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 05:13
|
|
|
I thought the answer was whichever the smooth jazz radio station is on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 05:19
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:I thought the answer was whichever the smooth jazz radio station is on. Enjoy, buddy. I listened to entirely too much of this while playing dumb flight sim games http://www.1940sukradio.co.uk/
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 05:20
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:I thought the answer was whichever the smooth jazz radio station is on. It was pretty rare, but once in a while we'd listen to some sports radio or news if there was something going on. We'd have to have a spare radio, which wasn't as common as you'd expect on an airplane with 13 of the loving things.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 06:20
|
|
|
Godholio posted:It was pretty rare, but once in a while we'd listen to some sports radio or news if there was something going on. We'd have to have a spare radio, which wasn't as common as you'd expect on an airplane with 13 of the loving things. I love having to explain to veteran controllers that don't generally work AWACS birds that they have people in the back that also have radios, and even different call signs, and that they have radar, too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 06:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 16:04 |
|
|
MrYenko posted:I love having to explain to veteran controllers that don't generally work AWACS birds that they have people in the back that also have radios, and even different call signs, and that they have radar, too.  After going through that dick-dance once, it was pretty easy to head off. One question down that path (Bandsaw, what's your squawk?) and we could get ahead of the trainwreck and help everyone save time and face. Edit: I can't make fun too much though, I somehow went through two years of training without learning that Navy jets change callsigns when they "go tactical." The first time I ran across that, two elements of F/A-18s checked in with me using completely different callsigns...I assumed they were on the wrong freq or someone had given us the wrong mission brief. So I set my scope up using these new callsigns (we could display callsigns based on IFF codes), then the fuckers changed callsigns and rolled their squawks and called "fights on" and I had no idea who was who until halfway through the first intercept. That was awesome. 
Godholio fucked around with this message at 07:19 on Jan 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 07:14
|
|