Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by nirav72 7 days ago
India has had the ability to reach LEO and beyond for a while now. So bringing down a nuke anywhere on the planet wouldn't be that difficult for them. That goes for any country that has LEO launch capabilities. Of course miniaturization of the nuclear payload is another matter.
1 comments
walrus01 7 days ago
Liquid fueled launch vehicles aren't storable/able to be made ready at a moment's notice, unlike solids. Liquid fueled historical artifact:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SM-65_Atlas

There's a reason all modern silo based (and submarine) ICBMs are solids.

link
stickfigure 7 days ago
> There's a reason all modern silo based (and submarine) ICBMs are solids.

Believe it or not, here in 2026, this is incorrect!

Those crazy Russians:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-29RMU_Sineva

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-29RMU2_Lajner

UDMH + nitrogen tetroxide.

I would not want to be a Russian submariner. For all sorts of reasons.

link
laughing_man 7 days ago
To be fair, while these missiles are still in service they're obsolete and are slated for retirement the coming decade.
link
stickfigure 6 days ago
The most recent started service in 2014. They may in fact be obsolete but not because they are old by soviet standards.
link
dmurray 7 days ago
Do you need to be able to strike at a moment's notice?

For a proper MAD-based nuclear deterrence, yes, you want to be able to launch a massive retaliation while your enemies' missiles are still in the air. Submarine-launched missiles also require stable storage. But having first-strike capabilities, the ability to wipe out any city in the world in return for a few weeks' planning, seems like something militaries would find valuable.

link