Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by whakim 1441 days ago
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.
1 comments
ceejayoz 1441 days ago
It would very much change the calculus for the UK and France, though. Maybe Israel, as well.
link
whakim 1441 days ago
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.
link
ceejayoz 1440 days ago
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...

link
DiogenesKynikos 1440 days ago
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.

link
wbl 1441 days ago
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.
link
JumpCrisscross 1440 days ago
> 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.

link