I know your secret.

I propose that all nations be armed with a doomsday mechanism. Some may accuse me of being idealistically egalitarian, but I assure you that I am only idealistic.

As a fail safe. In case any nation became suicidal, a system of underground bunkers could be drilled out to provide a refuge with a reasonably satisfactory quality of life during the fallout. We would be looking at no more than a century and a half until the radiation levels will have subsided to a nominal level so as to safely harbor the re-emergenc of humanity to the surface.

It is really all basic and necessary, at the most elementary levels of intellect.

All your posts contain very accessible information. How do we know this isn't another version of Reagon's SDI strategy?

That's exactly right, M., but the problem is, USA's NSA chief, John bolton, has figured out a way to bypass triggering of the Doomsday Device, and has already got funding to Boeing to manufacture the nuclear bunkerbusters.

But in doing so, Bolton has created a paradox for himself.

• To evade inevitable nuclear retaliation by third parties, hence, mutually assured destructiion (MAD), Bolton still has to claim the modified B61-12 is a not a WMD, but a 'tactical nuclear device.' Then retaliation with WMDs is not justified, Bolton claims.
• However, to bypass START treaty restrictions on making new kinds of nuclear weapons, Bolton already had to state it was not a new kind of weapon, but a modification of the B612-12 nuclear bomb. So he only pissed off the Russians, but didn't actually violate the treaty.

Bolton now has the paradoxical job of persuading the Acting Secretary of Defense that Matthis was wrong, and the modified B612-12 is not a WMD.

So that is the current state of the MAD.

But this doesn't address Wallows thoughts on SDI which is a defence strategy making America impregnable. What you're talking about us another offence weapon.

If you want to be safe from MAD (which term was coined before Ronald came along) you have to get rid of the means to achieve MAD -- nuclear weapons, whether launched from the air, the land, or the sea.

Some progress has been made in that direction, but even if the number of bombs on ready-to-launch missiles is an impoverished 400 or 500 per Russia and the US, that's enough to make life very difficult, if not impossible for everybody. (It isn't just the 1000 nuclear blasts and nuclear fallout; it's the fire storms that would be initiated by the atomic blasts that quite possibly would degrade the environment beyond survivability. Billions, trillions of tons of soot and dust carried aloft by the thermal columns could trigger the nuclear winter that people were afraid of just before global warming surfaced in the public angst machine.

How long would nuclear winter last? Oh, depending, maybe 5 to 10 years. 5 to 10 years Is more than enough for the world to eat its stored food and then slowly starve to death (all while dying of radiation poisoning, bad water, no infrastructure in working order, no internet, no cell phone service. We'd starve because it would be very difficult to bring enough crops to harvest to feed even a small fraction of the people.

(As I've often predicted, the masses will resort to cannibalism as soon as the Internet and cell service fails.). Cannibalism is repugnant, but keeping the most desirable people alive by feeding them the least desirable would be difficult to organise. I mean, how do you manage the logistical problems of mass cannibalism with so much infrastructure wrecked?

However, to bypass START treaty restrictions on making new kinds of nuclear weapons, Bolton already had to state it was not a new kind of weapon, but a modification of the B612-12 nuclear bomb. So he only pissed off the Russians, but didn't actually violate the treaty. — ernestm

That's why politics don't work with war. It's the greatest cowards with the most to lose who have their finger on the trigger. Not the ordinary folk like you and me just trying to put bread on the table.

mass cannibalism with so much infrastructure wrecked? — Bitter Crank

How do we know that raunchy meat in our Slim Jims isn't Soylent green?

But this doesn't address Wallows thoughts on SDI which is a defence strategy making America impregnable. What you're talking about us another offence weapon. — Brett

To be precise, it is an old offense weapon, that was a WMD, with a new delivery system and shaped charge, making it more like a gun than a bomb, because it targets a particular thing. Therefore, Bolton will be arguing, it is not a WMD, and does not invoke MAD.

But to defend against an attack with radar-invisible B2 bombers carrying nuclear bombs from aircraft carriers, a satellite-based laser would not have 120 seconds to respond. It would have to move its target faster than the aircraft can change direction until the laser destroys an entire plane. The cost of deploying SDI has now gone up one or two orders of magnitude.

So SDI program was dropped, and the NSA is about to manufacture tactical nuclear bombs instead. Next month.

↪Wallows If you want to be safe from MAD (which term was coined before Ronald came along) you have to get rid of the means to achieve MAD -- nuclear weapons, whether launched from the air, the land, or the sea. — Bitter Crank

The problem is, Bolton claims that nuclear bunker busters are not WMDs, and therefore do not justify massive retaliation. That's why the USA is now making 'tactical nuclear devices,' and Russia is following suit.

What now happens, is, Bolton claims, there will not be mutually assured destruction after he uses tactical nuclear devices. The most the Russians can justifiably do is use nuclear bunkerbusters themselves.

So MAD no longer stops the use of nuclear weapons. It broke down. It still stops massive retaliation, but it no longer stops nuclear weapons. As the USA keeps most of its active nuclear arsenal in Turkey, people there are scared out of their wits, because that's the first thing someone would target first, if they were attacking us in the same manner as we would attack N Korea.

What now happens, is, Bolton claims, there will not be mutually assured destruction after he uses tactical nuclear devices. The most the Russians can justifiably do is use nuclear bunkerbusters themselves. — ernestm

Interesting. So they’ll fight each other on an agreed upon breaking of the rules. Sort of a gentleman’s agreement.

Interesting. So they’ll fight each other on an agreed upon breaking of the rules. Sort of a gentleman’s agreement. — Brett

Exactly Bolton's view. If he says the B61-12 modifications don't qualify as making a new kind of nuclear weapon, then the Russians can make nuclear bunkerbusters too. So the Russians get to attack, say, Kiev's military bases with their own nuclear bunkerbusters. That's the way it is now.

Pretty fucking insane. I mean, to have a full proof measure of nullifying any attempts at nuclear war via Reagan's Star Wars and yet not pursuing it. As far as I'm aware it's an engineering problem as it stands...

No, actually it's a problem of a lack of sound and wholesome rationality.

As far as getting rid of nuclear weapons entirely? I say dream on.

Lasers don't work against mirrors.

Make the rockets shiny, and it's game over for lasers...

Regarding M.A.D, the rub is that whoever disarms first is then at the mercy of the other, which is why denuclearization is so difficult (it requires a hell of a lot of trust, and nobody is willing to risk the other holding back a few nukes).

But there's a significant upshot that must be recognized: MAD not only prevents the usage of nuclear weapons, it also prevents direct conflicts between nuclear armed nations, for fear of escalation.

If we did deuclearize, we would have to fight a bunch of areal-drone and boots-on-ground wars to re-establish hard territorial control. Imagine a hot war between the U.S and Russia (which would almost certainly have occurred if not for M.A.D).

EDIT: I should also mention that if we do make satellites with lasers strong enough to melt ICBMs, they would probably be strong enough to harm surface targets as well. Somehow the idea of being cooked with radiation from space isn't any less terrifying than nuclear explosions...

It's my understanding that Reagan's concept at the time was infeasible due to not being quite there yet technologically and economically. But, things have changed considerably since then. Rocket launch costs have drastically decreased due to the efforts of Elon Musk along with every country pursuing laser technology to defend against hypersonic missiles and such arising threats, which can be mounted on land, sea, and air-based systems. — Wallows

Actually it's extremely difficult if not practically impossible even now.

What exists are only the clumsy video graphics of laser interceptors in space we saw during the Reagan years, nothing else. Let's not forget a thing called physics here: a satellite has fly quite fast not to fall back and a satellite in geostationary orbit is useless as it's so far away with over 35 000km (for comparison the ISS is in orbit 340km above the Earth). Not only does this mean the issue is very difficult, but also there has to be a ton of those satellites orbiting in space. Add to this the large size of Russia and China and think just how many satellites should be there. And then there is of course the fact that Russia uses MIRVs and shooting down intercontinental ballistic missiles is totally different from shooting down basically WW2 technology rockets like Scuds (modified V-2s) or Katyusha-rockets fired at ranges similar of ordinary artillery fire.

The situation is almost a catch-22. As it stands there is no country in the world that presents a danger to us. After all, the Cold War is over and we won, with the collapse of the Soviet Union. But, the appeal of the Star Wars concept first introduced by Ronald Reagan is appealing due to in an absolute manner eliminating the viability of the Mutually Assured Destruction doctrine. — Wallows

Look at it the other way around: possessing an actual nuclear deterrence is the most obvious and practical way to deter US aggression if your country is already in the "axis-of-evil" sphere in the minds of the American neocons. Libya very stupidly stopped it's nuclear and chemical weapons programs, but on the other hand the totalitarian state run by a crazy loon had meager chances in them being highly successful. Syria's nuclear weapons program was on the other hand destroyed by Israel (just like Iraq's).

If your country isn't in the "axis-of-evil" category, then the international backlash of having a nuclear program can be too costly and that's why several countries have stopped their nuclear weapon programs: Sweden, Brazil, Argentina and South Africa have all abandoned their nuclear weapons programs. Which is just sound thinking from their position.

If we did denuclearize, we would have to fight a bunch of areal-drone and boots-on-ground wars to re-establish hard territorial control. Imagine a hot war between the U.S and Russia (which would almost certainly have occurred if not for M.A.D). — VagabondSpectre

This is the, should I say "politically incorrect" and taboo-like, argument that when publicly said will get more flak than the US bombers over Germany.

Saying anything good has come from nuclear weapons, like that the MAD prevented the US and Russia escalating their proxy wars into a full blown conflict, angers a lot of people. And it's the age-old problem in history of trying to argue that some issue prevented a war.

Lasers don't work against mirrors. — VagabondSpectre

True; but, the rationale isn't limited to laser weaponry, which in economical terms is and always will be cheaper to utilize than conventional munitions or even nuclear weapons against other nuclear weapons.

And, in physical terms even mylar coating isn't 100% reflective. But, I digress on the issue due to lack of knowledge.

I mean, you can have other directed energy weapons implemented in space. The only hurdle is getting a sufficiently powerful laser or lasers to focus a beam in one spot long enough to melt the coating, whatever that coating may be.

But there's a significant upshot that must be recognized: MAD not only prevents the usage of nuclear weapons, it also prevents direct conflicts between nuclear armed nations, for fear of escalation. — VagabondSpectre

No, your confusing equilibria points with something else. MAD led to an arms race between the US and the USSR. Each nation was in a frenzy to limit antiballistic measures as to not disrupt the balance of terror.

EDIT: I should also mention that if we do make satellites with lasers strong enough to melt ICBMs, they would probably be strong enough to harm surface targets as well. Somehow the idea of being cooked with radiation from space isn't any less terrifying than nuclear explosions... — VagabondSpectre

Well, getting a laser from space to be offence against ground units would require an incredibly powerful laser from space. I think, that a constellation of 1 MW lasers could do the job with ICBM's flying in close proximity to the height of the defensive measure during the entry-coasting-reentry phase that an ICBM goes through.

Actually it's extremely difficult if not practically impossible even now. — ssu

Can you explain your reasoning as to why practically impossible? My limited understanding on the matter is the miniturization and power needs to make the idea viable from space to counter threats like ICBM's.

Let's not forget a thing called physics here: a satellite has fly quite fast not to fall back and a satellite in geostationary orbit is useless as it's so far away with over 35 000km (for comparison the ISS is in orbit 340km above the Earth). — ssu

Well isn't Elon Musk's Starlink a type of proof of concept for the idea of placing constellations of laser defense satellites orbiting the Earth...?

My comment is:

We humans almost certainly have not fought our last major global war yet. The last one will be a monster...and may do the universe the favor of removing humans from the list of species that imperil the progress of sane, reasonable beings.

We may be lucky, though. We may develop AI before destroying ourselves...and the AI may not have the less desirable characteristics of its parents.

Can you explain your reasoning as to why practically impossible? My limited understanding on the matter is the miniturization and power needs to make the idea viable from space to counter threats like ICBM's. — Wallows

Sure, just to bring up few issues:

1) In order to stay in orbit at LEO, a satellite has to go something like over 27 000 km/h. Hence it's not in one spot for long to have the ability shoot at the target. Just look at the night sky and find an overflying satellite. It doesn't take long for it race across the sky. Just think of how many satellites you need for one satellite being over you 24 hours. And this ought to be the weapons platform for something that engages a nuclear warhead in mid-flight?

2) Nuclear warheads flying in space are small. There can be many of them (why the term MIRV) and the can change in mid-flight their course a little bit making them hard to hit. And they are going roughly the same speed as satellite.



3) Target acquisition, communication and command of the whole system is very complicated. Add there the fact that the enemy can target your communications facilities or try to shoot down satellites itself. And usually would fire a salvo of missiles.

4) Effective lasers today need basically a huge jet to carry them. And even if the would be able to engage just launched missiles that still are slow, the huge contraptions would be sitting ducks for enemy air defence. Lasers can be used in various ways in the modern battlefield, but this isn't simply the way to do it. Far more better to have a cheaper fighter or drone patrolling the area and try to attack the firing position before the rocket is prepared with your off-the-shelf bombs. And then there is the issue about submarine launched missiles.

Imagine, all of this you should put into a satellite:

Hence nearly all of the systems are ground based and basically follow the Russian style ABM systems. Nope, to put everything into a satellite simply isn't cost effective, even if it would be possible. The Russians have actually had an anti-ballistic missile system around Moscow operating I guess from the early 1970's the A-35 Anti-ballistic missile system:



And they have installed it only around Moscow (with a new upgraded system now in use), so that tells something about the cost-effectiveness of even these land based systems.

Unfortunately, no, the penultimate could prove far worse than the last global war. It appears World War 3 won't be the last. There could be at least two more world wars, with WW3 creating large zones of nuclear scorched earth first, starting in January next year.

NSA chief John Bolton leads the charge. His position now is, the Russians have nuclear bunkerbusters too, so the USA can use them as soon as they roll off the assembly line, next January. Say we use them in N Korea first, and maybe later Iran, Syria, and Mexico's South border. Then there is a 'gentleman's agreement' with Russia that they don't break the START treaty, because they aren't WMDs. Hence Russia gets to use its own nuclear weapons that are not WMDs too, with impunity from massive retaliation also. Russia might go for military installations in Ukraine right now, if it could; although Russia would probably want to warm up first in Yemen or Afghanistan.

In April 2019, John Bolton approved Boeing to manufacture 'nuclear bunkerbusters' by modifying B61-12 nuclear bombs, for deployment in N Korea next year. He claims the modified B61-12s will no longer be WMDs, because the nuclear chamber containment shape was modified to focus the blast downwards, into the ground, and the bomb's tail fin was modified to enable control of the angle at which the bomb strikes the ground, under satellite control.

In January this year, the prior secretary of defense, 'Mad Dog' Mattis, said they were still WMDs, and the Russians started making them first. But Mattis was fired the following month. John Bolton has been NSA chief since April, 2018, and is still in power.

Last year, Sandia National Labs announced the manufacturing space and tooling in Albuquerque would be ready in July this year. At first the funding was blocked by Congressional law stopping nuclear bomb development by the Department of Energy (DoE). In Trump's budget for 2018, the NSA was granted authority for nuclear bomb development, because the NSA has authority over the DoE, and so could legally fund the nuclear bomb development program independently.

After the funding approval in December, the NSA took only four months to select Boeing as the manufacturer for nuclear bunkerbusters. Boeing has been an active military contractor for the Department of Defense since at least its proposed alternative, and more technically advanced, 'delta wing' prototype for the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Catobar, which, together with the radar-invisible B2 Stealth Striker Bomber, would be the two airplanes dropping nuclear nuclear bunkerbusters any time after January next year.

This is the USA's second attempt to create a viable attack strategy on North Korea since Trump too power. First, former head of state Rex Tillerson was ordered to sell nuclear weapons to Japan. While trying to do as told, Tillerson called Trump an idiot (probably because Trump suddenly revealed he did not know what happened at Nagasaki, or the ilk). Tillerson was fired the following week, in March 2018, and Marine General Pompeo took over the Secreatary of State role. In April 2018, John Bolton took over the NSA. In March 2019, Patrick Shanahan became Acting Secretary of Defense, and is still not Senate approved.

In March 2019, after only one month in office, Shanahan deployed the largest nuclear mission since the Cold War: six B-52 bombers flew from the UK over Norway, the Baltic States, Greece, and Morocco. Four of the six B-52s were nuclear-capable. The other two were probably fuel tankers for escort jets.

In regards to #1. Elon Musk is deploying satellites in LEO that can provide internet to the world. Can't the same logic apply to defensive warfare satellites?

Also, have you heard of the new 150+kW lasers to be equipped soon on F-35's and F-22's? Hypothetically four of them operating in unison *could* eliminate the threat of ICBM's?

Thank you for interesting information and questions.

Further investment in laser-based attack systems has, as far as I know, been totally discontinued for quite a long time, in favor of the "MM104 Patriot" Surface-to-Air (SAM) Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM), since their spectacular success in Isreal, in 2014. They are still there, this is from three years later:



While they are not as effective as laser-based systems could be, public approval of their success in Israel led to the USA wanting NATO to pay for a EU defense grid.

Northrop Grumman also makes wireless-networked sensor and control vehicles, one each for a pair of Patriot launchers. The sensor vehicle includes laser tracking sensors. The lasers are not used for destruction. They are for painting a pinpoint target for the Patriot missiles.

The patriot control vehicles were designed to communicate and coordinate across multiple groups via an Engagement Operations Center (EOC). The first EOC for the USA's Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD) Battle Command System (IBCS) was delivered to the Army, at Huntsville, Alabama, last month.

The US navy missile destroyers, such as the USS John McCain, probably carry Patriot missiles to protect aircraft carriers, but I don't know the details.

The alternative to the B61-12 nuclear bunkerbuster, as alluded to by Mattis before his departure, is the modified Trident missile as a surface-to-surface attack device, instead of as a surface-to-air defense device, which means, the Trident missile launchers in the defense grid could also function as nuclear attack tanks. And, the USS John McCain could double as a single attack vessel, as well as be part of anti-ballistic missile defense system.

The British learned of this from their own paper, the Guardian, in January this year.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/28/us-nuclear-weapons-first-low-yield-warheads-roll-off-the-production-line

In regards to #1. Elon Musk is deploying satellites in LEO that can provide internet to the world. Can't the same logic apply to defensive warfare satellites? — Wallows

A telecom satellite is a bit different than a satellite that has to somehow destroy a man size object flying something like 20 000 km/h. As I said, the real issue is cost effectiveness. Hence we have firearms that function as the one's from WW2 or earlier, not ray guns.

Also, have you heard of the new 150+kW lasers to be equipped soon on F-35's and F-22's? Hypothetically four of them operating in unison *could* eliminate the threat of ICBM's? — Wallows

Why need a laser?

The obvious thing is to destroy anything remote close to being a ICBM launcher before it has shot it's missile away. The issue really comes down to why use a laser, when even a Mk 82 High explosive bomb would do the same thing? Besides, lasers are far better used as counter measures or attack stationary targets than the most fastest objects around.

Just think about the idea of the ABM. A bullet hitting a bullet. In the 1980's a note from the archives of Vitalii Leonidovich Kataev states that the A-35M system was capable of intercepting "a single ballistic missile from some directions and up to 6 Pershing II-type missiles from West-Germany". That system had 100 launchers and featured a nuclear-tipped exoatmospheric interceptor missile (so exactly hitting the warhead wasn't so important).

I'm sorry I misinformed you slightly on laser attack systems.

The 2019 budget did include 800 million for 'laser systems,' but that will also cover GPS and land/sea-based laser targeting systems. the 20200 budget proposal instead includes 235 million for "Directed Energy investment to support implementation of directed energy for base defense; enable testing and procurement of multiple types of lasers; and increase research and development for high-power density applications."

For nuclear bombs, the 2019 defense budget included $13.9 billion. The 2020 defense budget proposal no longer includes funding for nuclear bombs, because that is now part of Homeland Security.

The 2020 budget does provide $14 billion for space-based laser detection, infrared detection, and optical detection systems. Also it provides as follows for ABMs which could double as nuclear attack devices:
* 37 AEGIS Ballistic Missile Defense (SM-3) with Install - $1.7 billion
* Land-Launched Conventional Prompt Strike, Extended Range Weapon, Space-based Discrimination
Sensor Study - $1.5 billion
* Ground Based Midcourse Defense - $1.7 billion
* 37 THAAD Ballistic Missile Defense - $0.8 billion
* 147 Patriot Advanced Capability (PAC-3) Missile Segment Enhancements - $0.7 billion

Further investment in laser-based attack systems has, as far as I know, been totally discontinued for quite a long time, in favor of the "MM104 Patriot" Surface-to-Air (SAM) Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM), since their spectacular success in Isreal, in 2014. — ernestm

I think the Israelis favour more their own Iron Dome system than a missile that actually was developed in the 1950s. But then again, the to be intercepted targets are basically Katyusha-rockets. And basically Patriot is great to shoot down aircraft, not so actually at ballistic missiles (as we saw during the Gulf War).

The US navy missile destroyers, such as the USS John McCain, probably carry Patriot missiles to protect aircraft carriers, but I don't know the details. — ernestm

Nope. It would be absolute heresy for the US navy to use a missile system from another branch!
And carriers usually aren't attacked by ballistic missiles (even if they can be, especially the Chinese have these kinds of plans). Something like a torpedo works better.

The Navy uses basic Standard-missiles, just with a version converted to the anti-ballistic missile defence role. The idea is to shoot the enemy missiles in mid-term flight before the terminal phase with typically the Navy ship deployed in the route of the potential missile launching site and United States. (Again a simple example how crazy the idea of the putting these weapon systems in a platform in space by trying to cram it into a satellite that has severe limitations in weight and scale.)

For nuclear bombs, the 2019 defense budget included $13.9 billion. — ernestm

They will have a problem with the nuclear arsenal, because now it's very old. The US hasn't renewed it's nuclear arsenal, unlike Russia has been doing all the time. Just renewing it will be very costly, as we know how costly these things are made to be. A new budgetary fiasco in the making I guess.

Nope. It would be absolute heresy for the US navy to use a missile system from another branch!
And carriers usually aren't attacked by ballistic missiles (even if they can be, especially the Chinese have these kinds of plans). Something like a torpedo works better. — ssu

Well it's a major relief to hear about turf wars that stop Trident nuclear missile deployment on ships as well as submarines, airplanes, and land-based carriers. But the reason aircraft carriers aren't attacked by missiles is because the destroyers in the convoy group are stopping missiles with ABM countermeasures, as you say, so so far, the opposition forces have simply tried sinking a defense destroyers with torpedoes, or ramships, at least a couple of times, and so far managed only to cripple its movement. That only immobilizes the aircraft carrier convoy until a fake convoy joins back in, and so far, that's as far as its got. but after knocking out a destroyer, the next logical thing is to attack the aircraft carrier with ballistic missiles as fast as possible.

As I said, the real issue is cost effectiveness. — ssu

I find it hard to believe that laser systems are in some way inferior to conventional chemical-based munitions. It's like comparing an electric car to a gasoline one.