Submarines, deterrent and missiles

[simonineaston]

On the recommendation of Bill Gates, I'm reading Steven Pinker's The Better Angels of Our Nature, which is about the decline in violence. In an early chapter he summarises the notion of deterrent and how it works... Can any of you lot explain how a submarine armed with a handful of non-nuclear missile acts as a deterrent?

[bovlomov]

And can anyone explain how a submarine armed with nuclear warheads would deter any regime or group mad enough to launch a first nuclear strike?

By the way, does Pinker explain how it works, or how some assume it works?

[pwa]

By non-nuclear missiles I take it that we are talking about what we sometimes call "cruise missiles", capable of flying for hundreds of miles at low altitude and hitting a specific target. Being on a submarine, the enemy would not know exactly where the launch platform is, so the threat is usefully uncertain. You can put it in the Gulf of Arabia, the South China Sea, or wherever you like so long as you stay in international waters, or the waters of allies. In one way the non-nuclear missiles are a more tangible threat that nuclear missiles because you are more likely to use them.

What sort of enemy would be "deterred" by such a facility? Well, it would probably have deterred the Argentinians if we had had that in the early 1980s. It would have been credible because we could have accurately targeted their airfields, their navy and their troops. With ISIL, to take another example, the deterrent is not so apparently useful because they don't have nice big juicy targets, and they are too integrated into the civilian population.

One of the best "deterrents", these days, is the economic disaster that comes from going to war. Russia, for example, would suffer tremendously if she ever went to war with the West. Regardless of the military consequences. And vice versa. I'm hoping that China keeps that sort of thinking uppermost in her dealings with Japan.

[53x13]

Deterrents nowadays have been replaced with much more effective 'weapons' which are in no particular order:

Bringing down the power grid (easily achieved by multiple hacks), after only two weeks without power you've got no food left on the shelves, total information blackout, starvation and mass civil unrest. Social collapse follows quickly.

Taking the internet offline. Again, a thorough loss of access to 'real' news, no electronic commerce or communication, satellites unable to relay data, government coups easy and quick. Electricity generation, gas and oil supply, transport logistics,
commerce grinds to a halt. All cash points inoperable, run on the banks, possible withdrawal of money system, mobile communication near impossible. It's estimated that after only 1 month outage the same situations as the above will occur.

Global financial collapse. All of the above, but taking slightly longer to achieve. Timescale 3-6 months before martial law introduced for population control as access to food becomes more difficult.

Who needs nuclear weapons when you can achieve the same outcome without destroying the earth as any of the above?

Nuclear deterrents = redundant.

[meic]

And can anyone explain how a submarine armed with nuclear warheads would deter any regime or group mad enough to launch a first nuclear strike?

By the way, does Pinker explain how it works, or how some assume it works?

Because there are regimes who are mad enough to invade other (weaker) countries, bomb other (weaker) countries and even launch a nuclear attack from a safe (in their minds) distance but are not mad enough to risk doing it to somebody who is capable of doing it back to them.

[pwa]

In answer to the OP, the non-nuclear missiles are not simply a deterrent. They are occasionally used.

[meic]

Yes, they are an offensive weapon more than a defensive weapon.

Modern gunboat diplomacy used in the enforcement of the whatever we are currently trying to achieve through projection of power.

[bovlomov]

...but are not mad enough to risk doing it to somebody who is capable of doing it back to them.

That clearly happens in some cases, but the history books show plenty of examples of attacks on those that are capable of doing the same in return. Megalomaniacs happen not to be very good at judging consequences, either for themselves or for their citizens.

I'm not entirely discounting the value of the Nuclear Deterrent, but I do think its proponents vastly underestimate the complexity of human relationships. For example, the atomic bomb is credited with ending the Pacific war. Yet the bombing of Hiroshima alone wasn't enough to drive the Japanese leadership to surrender. A first nuclear strike, and the prospect of more, were something they could accept, even though they had no atom bomb themselves.

...so they decided to endure the remaining attacks, acknowledging "there would be more destruction but the war would go on."

I'm not quite sure what my point is. I think it's that nuclear retaliation may not figure very highly in the considerations of aggressive leaders. If conventional bombing (in all its wonderful forms), destruction of physical and virtual infrastructure, widespread starvation and ill health of the population, and being sent to diplomatic Coventry, doesn't deter them, then a nuclear bomb is unlikely to.

[meic]

Conventional bombing is a slow war of attrition and a valiant nation can heroically endure it and rise again from the ashes with firm resolve, "I have nothing to offer you but blood sweat and tears".

A nuclear war is instant and irresistible, "shock and awe" on a national scale, not something that can be endured and risen from to launch a (non nuclear) counter attack. "I have nothing to offer you but annihilation" (mutual if both sides are nuclear).

Of course if you believe some of the extremists' views about the other extremists, then they (both sides) think this is a price worth paying.

[53x13]

The next world conflict will be fought with satellites and an army of dedicated, pony tailed hackers. All you need do is bring down an electricity supply grid, a pan national internet outage or banking collapse and you literally have total control over another nation state. China has already demonstrated it's power and agility in this area. It's posited that these methods can be used to bring North Korea to it's knees without firing a single shot, launching a drone or putting any nuclear arsenal into play.

Thermonuclear weapons are SO twentieth century

[Lance Dopestrong]

Cruise missiles can also carry nukes. They can be used as a tactical or a strategic weapon.

[simonineaston]

I bet Kim's been reading this topic! Hi, Kim! Good call.
http://www.reuters.com/places/north-korea

[Mick F]

Cruise missiles can also carry nukes. They can be used as a tactical or a strategic weapon.

Yep.
The last couple of ships I served in had Harpoon cruise missiles. Type 23 frigates.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_23_frigate
Submarines have a version too.

[Cunobelin]

One of the points that hasn't changed is the MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) angle

Because (theoretically you do not know where the submarine is, you cannot remove it from the equation.

Hence if you do decide to launch a nuclear attack then you are aware that long before your missiles have landed a retaliatory strike will have commenced and tere id nothing tht you can do to alleviate or stop that attack


Hence the fear element that in theory provides a disincentive, that "protects" from nuclear strike and hence a defence element to their presence

[Cunobelin]

Afar more discreet, effective and at the moment speculative threat though is a "Dirty Bomb"

Steal a relatively small radioactive source (held in many places near you) and place in a standard car bomb or even a suitcase or rucksack sized device

When the bomb goes off it distributes that radiation.

Firstly it is effective because as soon as you mention radiation the public will think a nuclear device has been used, and secondly depending upon the type and anount, it may be many years before a safe level is reached for the public to re-enter that area

Then combine with the public fear of cancer and deformities caused by the radiation and it is a superbly simple, but effective terrorist tool leaving an effective propaganda reminder