[unchocked]

Seems naive that, as the article claims, nations might agree to limit their detection technology to enhance survivability of their adversaries’ nuclear forces.

If “ocean transparency” comes to pass, it seems much likelier that we’d have to deal with a realignment of the MAD calculus.

[whakim]

Even though this seems paradoxical, there's actually a logic to it.

One of the reasons countries like the United States and Russia (previously, the USSR) maintain such large nuclear arsenals is to project a credible thread of a second strike - i.e., the idea that any first strike wouldn't be able to completely knock out the opponent's nuclear arsenal. If both sides think that the "submarine" portion of their nuclear triad isn't sufficiently contributing to second strike capability, that'll probably just mean significantly doubling down on ICBMs and forward-deployed bombers (or investing in a different delivery system) so that the calculus remains fundamentally unchanged.

[ceejayoz]

It would very much change the calculus for the UK and France, though. Maybe Israel, as well.

[whakim]

I'm not sure it'd change the calculus for the UK or France because they are NATO members which effectively ensures their second strike capability. (It certainly might change the cost/benefit calculation on building submarines, though!) Israel probably doesn't even subscribe to a second strike doctrine given that the potential adversaries they're trying to deter don't even have nuclear weapons.

[ceejayoz]

Israel does subscribe to a second strike doctrine. They’re quite publicly worried about Iran getting nukes.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/open-secret-israeli...

[DiogenesKynikos]

France has made a deliberate point of not relying on NATO, and instead maintaining its own nuclear arsenal.

If the Cold War had turned hot, the Soviet plan was to drive to the Rhine and then negotiate, on the theory that the US might sacrifice West Germany, but that France would definitely retaliate on its own.

[wbl]

Pakistan does have nuclear weapons and the risk of them transferring them to an Islamic fundamentalist trying to rid the middle east of Jews is nonzero.

[JumpCrisscross]

> the risk of them transferring them to an Islamic fundamentalist trying to rid the middle east of Jews is nonzero

You’re describing an undeterrable actor.

[BeefWellington]

I would guess that on some level, some analyst many years ago laid out a plan for what should happen with that, and the first thing would be to have a few armed satellites to ensure the continued effectiveness of MAD as a concept.

Yes, it would violate treaties against the weaponization of space but I would lay even money on the idea that some country has already done this.

[bpodgursky]

It's tricky because if you do it in secret, it's not MAD, and it's not actually an effective deterrent.

It only works as a deterrent if you break the treaty and everyone knows you've broken the treaty (whether you publicly admit it or not) but we aren't there afaik.

[toast0]

> It only works as a deterrent if you break the treaty and everyone knows you've broken the treaty (whether you publicly admit it or not) but we aren't there afaik.

It could work if it gets to the point where 'only an idiot' wouldn't have broken the treaty, so you can just assume everyone has, because the idea is fairly obvious, the technology is easy, and there's not any other good options. Or if a rogue state does it or something like it, then you can assume the US and Russia have done it or will be doing it shortly.

[cupofpython]

but then you dont actually have to spend resources breaking the treaty since everyone is already assuming you did.

at best it's just an "are you feeling lucky?" situation unless you publicly prove it

[plasticchris]

Makes the trend to on orbit “servicing” of satellites seem much more sinister.

[nradov]

Armed satellites aren't survivable.

[foolfoolz]

MAD has been in constant re-alignment since it became a thing. first with detection to be able to retaliate before getting blown up. then with guaranteed second strike from subs. then with missile defense which we don’t have yet but in theory if you can shoot down the nukes you can strike without retaliation

[sgc]

There could be no trust for such an agreement, hence it will never happen.

[mike_hock]

It's even more absurd than the idea that nations would curb their CO2 emissions (beyond token gestures) to stave off climate change.