Is MAD logic at risk of failing?

[seahawk]

10 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

It depends how good their communications is. From what ive read about whats happened to their doomsday planes being pilfered by looters, there is a lot of reason to suspect quite a lot of their communications capablities, particularly in a crisis, may well be threadbare.

How often do their boats check in? How viable is it for them to send a message if they get ambushed? Have their communications systems, land or space base, been atritted? Its all dependent on circumstance.

If you attack the WMD carriers or the associated communications, any sane country would assume that an attack is imminent and would pre-emptively launch their remaining weapons.  That was always the fear of the Cold War, that an unrelated string of accidents could lead to nuclear war. But at that time you had a direct communications link between both sides and a certain basis of trust between both sides. Today we have neither.

[RETAC21]

59 minutes ago, lucklucky said:

Any submarine can launch a coms buoy.

And it has worked so well  that nearly all submarines lost post-war couldn't be found if lost underwater until quite some time after.*... A torpedo hit at depth doesn't leave people able to talk.

* Tresher, Scorpion, San Juan, Nanggala, Kursk.

[RETAC21]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

It depends how good their communications is. From what ive read about whats happened to their doomsday planes being pilfered by looters, there is a lot of reason to suspect quite a lot of their communications capablities, particularly in a crisis, may well be threadbare.

How often do their boats check in? How viable is it for them to send a message if they get ambushed? Have their communications systems, land or space base, been atritted? Its all dependent on circumstance.

The Soviets were worried about this and built a Doomsday machine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Hand

Still in use, but it needs a nuclear detonation to be triggered.

[Josh]

A torpedo explosion is an unambiguous event that can be picked up over hundreds or even thousands of miles by civilian hydrophones. A submarine implosion is audible practically across the world.

if you want to sink SSBNs it better be part of a general first strike against you opponent’s entire triad, or else just don’t.

[glenn239]

On 4/27/2022 at 1:06 PM, lucklucky said:

Are we entering an era where MAD fails because using Nukes cannot be conceivable, something so distant, so outlandish, that actors start to act like if it is impossible making the whole MAD logic collapse. 

That implies that the MAD theory ever had real merit.  Nuclear powers have actually, after 1945, proven remarkably reluctant to use nuclear weapons, taking the view that conflicts have to be settled conventionally even if this means losing the war.  I would take Russian nuclear sabre rattling lately to mean that the conventional war on Ukraine is going to get more brutal, not that Russia is going to nuke NATO.  Were a nuclear war to break out, I would expect a fairly 'clean' one -  i.e., that NATO is destroyed as a militarily entity with as few civilian casualties as possible, even as Russia is being destroyed as a military power also with as few civilians as possible.

Both sides would need to learn Chinese to talk to their bosses afterwards, of course.

Edited April 29, 2022 by glenn239

[RETAC21]

1 hour ago, Josh said:

A torpedo explosion is an unambiguous event that can be picked up over hundreds or even thousands of miles by civilian hydrophones. A submarine implosion is audible practically across the world.

if you want to sink SSBNs it better be part of a general first strike against you opponent’s entire triad, or else just don’t.

No, it's not, it's just an explosion and someone needs to be listening, which navies usually aren't.... (Scorpion was picked up by a sicentific array, K-129 by the Air Force, San Juan by the Test Ban treaty), all of which requires analysis and time, it's not going to trigger an automatic response.

[Josh]

15 minutes ago, RETAC21 said:

No, it's not, it's just an explosion and someone needs to be listening, which navies usually aren't.... (Scorpion was picked up by a sicentific array, K-129 by the Air Force, San Juan by the Test Ban treaty), all of which requires analysis and time, it's not going to trigger an automatic response.

The response might not be automatic or immediate, but there would be a response. Flip the script; if a US, UK, or French boomer went missing, what would happen?

[Stuart Galbraith]

2 hours ago, RETAC21 said:

The Soviets were worried about this and built a Doomsday machine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Hand

Still in use, but it needs a nuclear detonation to be triggered.

Ah, the remarkable Perimitr. You are right, I forgot that. 

I guess this is one more reason to counter nuclear use with conventional weapons.

[Stuart Galbraith]

11 minutes ago, Josh said:

The response might not be automatic or immediate, but there would be a response. Flip the script; if a US, UK, or French boomer went missing, what would happen?

We wouldn't launch on such an ambiguous message. And neither did the Soviets when their Golf went missing, or when they discovered the Yanks were trying to steal it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Azorian

[RETAC21]

19 minutes ago, Josh said:

The response might not be automatic or immediate, but there would be a response. Flip the script; if a US, UK, or French boomer went missing, what would happen?

A response that needs to be symmetrical, which the Russian Navy can't deliver.

Russia is living off the Soviet Union's investment and they are reaching end of life, which is why Topol and Sarmat are high priority items.

[Stuart Galbraith]

The spate of failures of Bulava during developmentraises the question in my mind whether the production rounds of these missiles (or the land based missiles actually)are going to have a significant dud rate.

[TrustMe]

3 hours ago, RETAC21 said:

...Russia is living off the Soviet Union's investment and they are reaching end of life, which is why Topol and Sarmat are high priority items...

That's not true. In the hollow years from 1991 to 2005 the only aspect of there defence capability that was funded was the nuclear triad of the naval, land based, and bomber forces.

Their nuclear forces are of a lot more recent design than the US ballistic missile force for example

Edited April 29, 2022 by TrustMe

[Josh]

Russia has an SLBM and two types of ICBM in production now. I think the majority of their inventory post dates the Soviet Union, where as every US delivery system does not. That said, regular upgrades and testing has generally confirmed the reliability of US delivery systems. But the Russians are hardly just coasting on hand me downs; they have made a very concerted effort to maintain their nuclear capability precisely because it is what makes them different from all other European or central Asian powers.

[RETAC21]

6 minutes ago, TrustMe said:

That's not true. In the hollow years from 1991 to 2005 the only aspect of there defence capability that was funded was the nuclear triad of the naval, land based, and bomber forces.

Their nuclear forces are of a lot more recent design than the US ballistic missile force for example

That's only partially true. The land based force is more recent, but the air and sea based vectors are still Soviet made except single units.

[Josh]

According to wiki there are five active Borei class boats, and apparently still five active Deltas IVs. So the sea based leg is heavily updated, as is most of the ICBM force. I think there are still a small numbers of SS-19 for Avangarde and the SS-18s are awaiting replacement by the new SS-29s (Avangarde also to be transfered to that type). I think the next oldest thing in inventory is Torpol M, which I think is scheduled to be replaced with additional Yars.

The aircraft are Soviet vintage, but then so are those of the USAF.

[RETAC21]

33 minutes ago, Josh said:

According to wiki there are five active Borei class boats, and apparently still five active Deltas IVs. So the sea based leg is heavily updated, as is most of the ICBM force. I think there are still a small numbers of SS-19 for Avangarde and the SS-18s are awaiting replacement by the new SS-29s (Avangarde also to be transfered to that type). I think the next oldest thing in inventory is Torpol M, which I think is scheduled to be replaced with additional Yars.

The aircraft are Soviet vintage, but then so are those of the USAF.

Yep, you are right, but also note that the first boat is mainly a trial boat and that leaves just 4 to perform patrols, of which, the last is not yet operational, as it just have been commissioned. Against this, there are 45 US/UK SSNs. This is 2 years old, https://russianforces.org/current/ but nevertheless, it's not a massive force.

It doesn't matter that US vectors are older, as they can be countered with conventional weapons.

[Stuart Galbraith]

47 minutes ago, Josh said:

According to wiki there are five active Borei class boats, and apparently still five active Deltas IVs. So the sea based leg is heavily updated, as is most of the ICBM force. I think there are still a small numbers of SS-19 for Avangarde and the SS-18s are awaiting replacement by the new SS-29s (Avangarde also to be transfered to that type). I think the next oldest thing in inventory is Torpol M, which I think is scheduled to be replaced with additional Yars.

The aircraft are Soviet vintage, but then so are those of the USAF.

I think they still have a Delta III in service, and a Typhoon, so the balance is still with Soviet era boats.

Wait till you read of the rest reports for Bulava.....

B2 is still nuclear capable I think, that was post cold war, though admittedly it was designed for SAC.

[Josh]

I think the Delta III was recently retired. Not sure about the Typhoon.

Fair point about the B-2, all dozen combat coded airframes. Technically at least one of the Tu-160s is a new build as well. Of course soon the B-21s will start to enter service, and that will be a truly new aircraft.

[Stuart Galbraith]

It was K44 Ryazan if my sources are correct. I had a look to see if she had been withdrawn, I cant find anything. I should probably look through Covert Shores, he would know.

The Typhoon is reportedly still in limited use as a test platform, but it can fire Bulava and is presumably theoretically capable of undertaking a patrol in a crisis. I mean, who wouldnt want to go on patrol with a frigging Jacuzzi, right?

The Tu160M, im uncertain how much its really in new production, and how much that is just Soviet era airframes being finally completed. There was at least one or 2 on the line awaiting completion. The real test is if they build 10 or more, which Im rapidly thinking they are not up to, judging by the general failure of the rest of the Russian defence industry.

There was a very good video on Russian nuclear forces about 4 years ago on Atlantic council. The conclusion was not that they cant build good kit. The problem was they just only seem to be talking about building it in trace amounts. I think even Satan 2 was supposed to be only built in about 56 missiles. And then they go and develop avangard, which again seems to be only procured in trivial amounts. It looks less like seriously rebuilding the Russian  Nuclear  Forces, than scraping the last of the butter out the tub over a huge piece of toast.

 

[Josh]

I’m confident the Russians have enough production capability to continue to modernize and maintain a force that can go boom. Again, US production has been almost none existent since the 80s.

where and when I think the Russians will struggle is when China reaches near peer nuclear capability after New START ends. There likely won’t be any structure the Big 3 will agree upon and I think we’ll see an uncontrolled arms race between the US and China that Russia can’t afford to keep up with.