Are there any comparable powers? In a later post, you mentioned that Russia has the satellite technology to detect our subs, but lacks the resources to destroy them. I’m pretty sure that I know a lot less about this than you do, but it seems to me that you need both to defend against a submarine attack.
Is there any other nation that has a satellite system of the sort you describe? If so, do they have the ability to destroy the subs they detect? (Or, alternatively, is there some plausible alliance of nations that, together, has these abilities?)
I’m not interested in launching any pre-emptive strikes, mind you; I’m just curious.
Not currently. The Chinese are probably next to develop the technology, and everybody else (France, India, Pakistan, et cetera) are far out, with the people we’re most concerned about (currently Iran and North Korea) not even on the horizon. But then, MAD doesn’t really apply to any of these powers, as nuclear parity doesn’t exist between us. With an exchange between the US and, say, North Korea, it wouldn’t be mutually assured destruction…it would be moderate casualties (“Ten to twenty million, tops! Oh, depending on the breaks.”) to the US and eradication of the good portion of the Korean Pennisula, and that would be the worst case for the US.
I find this scenerio unlikely, however. For one, Kim Jong Il is going to be long gone before North Korea ever develops sufficient missile technology to accurately strike at the US, regardless of nuclear production capability. More likely is that if he were mad enough to make an attack, he’d send it over as a crate of DVD players, and I would hope, in that case, that our response would be restricted to eliminating the key players rather than the bulk population. I would like to think that the people working for Herr Kim are not so sufficiently divorced from reality that that would at least have some grasp on the consequences to themselves and would fail to execute such a mission if so ordered; this isn’t a guarantee, but given that any primative missile system or subterfuge attack is going to require the tacit agreement of many people I’d like to think that one of them would find a way to sabotage such a suicidal plan.
In any case, the era of strategic nuclear deterrance is at an end. There remain no competing strategic powers–at least, for now–and the current and near future threat is one of tactical response. We should be less concerned about preventing or deterring a disarming first strike than we should someone sailing a nuclear bomb into Port of Long Beach in the guise of a sailing yacht.
Glad to hear it; you had me worried there for a moment.
The point is to reassure people you’re not crazy enough to use them first. As long as nobody uses nuclear weapons first, nuclear weapons won’t get used. So generally, encouraging “no first use” policies is a good idea for everybody. However, the United States has on several occasions (not counting the OP) stated it would use nuclear weapons first in some circumstances.
One disadvantage of nuclear weapons (or other weapons of mass destruction) is that the power that uses them first would usually get the most advantage from their use. So in a situation where somebody is likely to use WMD’s, there is a strong motivation to use them first. To counter this, most nations seek to reassure each other that they do not plan on using WMD’s in such a situation.
