[theyregreat]

General "Buck" Turgidson: Doctor, you mentioned the ratio of ten women to each man. Now, wouldn't that necessitate the abandonment of the so-called monogamous sexual relationship, I mean, as far as men were concerned?

Dr. Strangelove: Regrettably, yes. But it is, you know, a sacrifice required for the future of the human race. I hasten to add that since each man will be required to do prodigious... service along these lines, the women will have to be selected for their sexual characteristics which will have to be of a highly stimulating nature.

Ambassador de Sadesky: I must confess, you have an astonishingly good idea there, Doctor.

Of course, what a waste of money (eg ICBMs and SLBMs are superior in every respect) and unnecessary escalation of risk.

[Overtonwindow]

"General "Buck" Turgidson: Mr. President, we must not allow a mineshaft gap!"

Astonishingly good movie.

[microcolonel]

It's a waste of money if you and your allies aren't under constant, repeated threat.

[mikeash]

Even if you are under threat, what purpose is served in the modern age by putting bombers on alert? The war would be over before they reached an interesting target.

[ChuckMcM]

As I am sure you are aware, there is quite a bit of solid policy discussion on the various nuclear engagement scenarios. For this particular question the idea that if you can respond after a pre-emptive first strike then your enemy will have killed themselves by killing you. Since self preservation is a common thing, the ability to respond post initial strike is essential.

[mikeash]

Missiles do that job just fine.

[ChuckMcM]

Seriously, I really do think it is instructive to read the literature on this. Missiles in silos are counter balanced by a premptive strike on the silos, mobile missiles (like the MX) are pre-emptible as well but need more warheads, subs are a good counter threat but are tracked by other subs, and nuclear depth charges are able to clear lots of ocean fairly quickly, bombers with cruise missiles are countered with aircraft.

In all cases there are costs and visibility challenges like you have to open your silo doors before you shoot missiles and over the arctic missiles take 30 minutes to arrive. Bombers in the air can see fighters who might be tailing them but they cant be countered by ground based missiles easily, it literally goes on and on. Measure, counter-measure. Signal, counter signal. Threat, defensive capability.

Literally end of the world as we know it kind of stuff so a lot of time and effort has been invested in understanding it.

[mikeash]

I've read a lot about it, and I just don't see the purpose of having bombers on alert these days. It seems like their capabilities are similar to those of ICBMs as an alert force, but worse in every way. They take longer to launch, they're easier to destroy, they're vulnerable for longer, they take longer to arrive, and they are much easier to intercept on the way.

Rather than lecturing me on how I should read more and question less, maybe you could tell me just what advantages bombers have over missiles as at alert force?

[techdragon]

... Unless the silos are attacked by Submarine launched ballistic missiles using depressed trajectories as part of a neutralising/decapitation first strike.

See it's the complicated, many possible options, nature of war planning that makes stuff like this much less black and white.

[eesmith]

Whose submarines are you thinking of that could destroy all of the US ground-based missile launch facilities in a first strike?

The war planning based around what you describe assumed the Soviet submarine fleet, yes?

Are you worried about Russia, China ("the Type 094s noisiness would make it difficult for it to reach and maintain patrol areas where it could strike at the contiguous United States"), or India?

[mikeash]

Bombers could be attacked the same way, and take longer to launch and take less to destroy, so are even more vulnerable.

The threat of a sudden first strike that destroys our weapons on the ground is why we have ballistic missile submarines.

[bactrian]

The US can probably see the position of every sub on the planet using magnetic imaging.

[carlisle_]

Some would argue a threat worsened by provocative and unilateral actions, but we'll see who writes the history books.

[microcolonel]

Unilateral actions such as capturing military vessels, ignoring international agreements, making credible mortal threats to billions of people, and launching ICBMs over other nations?

DPRK has already engaged in acts of war against both ROK and Japan. There's nothing unilateral left.

[csallen]

Unless I'm mistaken, there is no military solution to the North Korean conflict. If we strike first, they'll destroy Seoul in seconds and cause the largest near-instantaneous loss of life the world has ever seen. They don't even need nuclear weapons to do that.

As terrible as the North Korean regime is from a humanitarian perspective, they do seem relatively rational as far as international politics are concerned. The US has demonstrated an appetite for regime change, international law be damned, for decades and decades. If you're a weaker opponent, taking a hostage (Seoul) and making credible threats is a very effective strategy for self preservation.

Also, the number of conventional and nuclear weapons we have pointed at their country, from a very close proximity, at all times, is not something we might spend very much time thinking about ourselves, but is top of mind for them. Given their large losses of civilian life in the Korean war at the hands of the US, I'd imagine they'd take that stuff very seriously.

Anyway, none of this excuses the clear oppressiveness of Kim Jong Un's government. But it's not like they're the only nation that abuses its military power in threatening ways, and a strong case could be made that they're reacting to us just as we are reacting to them. Just don't expect the American media to dwell too long on how our actions could be considered provocative.

[adventured]

> If we strike first, they'll destroy Seoul in seconds and cause the largest near-instantaneous loss of life the world has ever seen. They don't even need nuclear weapons to do that.

That's incorrect analysis. Nothing like instantaneous destruction would occur without nuclear weapons. It would take months of perfect artillery fire to destroy Seoul, assuming 100% detonation rate, unlimited ammo and assuming zero artillery is destroyed. They would run out of ammo before destroying Seoul, even in the impossible perfect scenario.

"How much damage an initial attack would inflict depends on how many are used and on how much of the ordnance explodes. In 2010, North Korean forces fired about 170 shells at an island in the South, killing two civilians and two soldiers. Analysts later concluded that about 25 percent of the North’s shells failed to detonate.

"A study published by the Nautilus Institute for Security and Sustainability in 2012 accounting for these and other factors such as population density concluded that an initial artillery barrage by the North focused on military targets would result in nearly 3,000 fatalities, while one targeting civilians would kill nearly 30,000 people."

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/05/world/asia/north-korea-so...

"A retired U.S. general said a Pentagon war scenario showed a conventional war with North Korea could result in about 20,000 deaths per day in South Korea, according to the Los Angeles Times."

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/25/korean-war-simulation-by-dod...

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6212/north-korea-a...

https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/how-north-korea-would...

[csallen]

Before he resigned, Steve Bannon said, "Until somebody solves the part of the equation that shows me that ten million people in Seoul don’t die in the first 30 minutes from conventional weapons, I don’t know what you’re talking about, there’s no military solution here, they got us."

That's the most recent statement by a high-ranking government official that I've heard, but it's so high that it has to be an exaggeration. Anyway, to surpass Hiroshima, they don't need anywhere near that amount. They just need about 3x what your estimate says they had in 2012. Less if Seoul has grown in population density during that time.

[mcphage]

> That's incorrect analysis. Nothing like instantaneous destruction would occur without nuclear weapons. It would take months of perfect artillery fire to destroy Seoul, assuming 100% detonation rate, unlimited ammo and assuming zero artillery is destroyed. They would run out of ammo before destroying Seoul, even in the impossible perfect scenario.

If only there were something in between artillery shelling and nuclear weapons...

[MR4D]

There is almost always a military solution. It’s just that the outcome may not be “optimal”.

Clearly, some cases are way, way less than optimal.

D-day planning, for instance, was quite ugly. They planned for roughly 40% casualties just on securing the beachhead. That’s a military solution, but it sure sucked. Thankfully it worked out much better than the plan.

[Bendingo]

>I'd imagine they'd take that stuff very seriously

Indeed. Especially since the US refuses to end the Korean war by signing a peace treaty.

[perl4ever]

Wouldn't South Korea have to sign it, since the US is not at war with North Korea?

[tzs]

The ICBM launches over Japan were probably not an act of war, because they did not go through Japanese airspace. When they were over Japan they were over 500 km up. That's well above any nation's airspace. For comparison, the ISS orbits at about 400 km up.

[trgv]

I don't think the threats are credible. I don't see what NK would gain from "nuking Guam," besides the end of their country.

It's just posturing, and "putting Nuclear Bombers on 24-hour alert" is also just posturing.

[pmoriarty]

"'putting Nuclear Bombers on 24-hour alert' is also just posturing."

It also raises the risk of unintentional nuclear exchange.

The world has come close to nuclear war multiple times as a result of miscommunication, equipment failure, or accident.

The more nukes world leaders are waving about, the greater the risks.

[microcolonel]

The threats are credible in that they would have no qualms about executing them, not in that they will fail to be averted.

> It's just posturing, and "putting Nuclear Bombers on 24-hour alert" is also just posturing.

That's exactly my point: there's nothing one-sided about this. DPRK is playing their hand, the U.S. must play theirs.

[Bendingo]

> the U.S. must play theirs

Or, as the far stronger side, the US could de-escalate. Not only is this the less-risky option, but it would also garner global respect/admiration for the US - something that has been in short supply for a long time.

[remarkEon]

>I don't see what NK would gain from "nuking Guam," besides the end of their country.

Guam appears to be an internet hub for a few relatively important lines.

"The SEA-US cable system will link the five areas and territories of Manado in Indonesia, Davao in Southern Philippines; Piti in the territory of Guam; as well as Honolulu (on the island of Oahu), Hawaii; and Los Angeles, California in the continental U.S." [1]

[1] https://www.submarinenetworks.com/systems/trans-pacific/sea-...

Here's the global map:

https://www.submarinecablemap.com/#/landing-point/piti-guam