Does MAD still apply?

[PCShogun]

Mutual assured destruction, as a policy doctrine, is based on the fact that in the event two enemies, engaging in the full scale use of high yield nuclear weapons, would result in the utter destruction of both the attacker and defender. In order for this condition to exist, certain conditions must apply:

• A first strike must be unable to destroy the targets ability to respond in kind. The enemies inability to respond means that mutual destruction is not assured and thus the MAD deterrent is weakened or eliminated.
  
• There can be no ability to defend against such an attack. ABM's, fallout shelters, SDI; all these advances reduce the deterrence of MAD once a significant amount of population, industry, and military is felt to be defended from a strike.

With current treaty reductions on nuclear forces in affect, Russia, China, and the United States can severely damage, but can no longer destroy the other. Smaller nations never had the ability to destroy the other nuclear powers completely, but their capabilities are growing. ABM installations, while intended to defend against rouge nuclear states (North Korea, Iran), can quickly be deployed to defend against attack from larger nuclear powers, further reducing the nuclear affect of such an attack. This being said, with MAD no longer being "Mutually Assured", is the deterrent still in effect? If not, what is to prevent a future nuclear war, or a first use scenario involving an emerging nuclear state?

 

[Feanor]

I disagree. Russia and the US still have enough nukes to destroy each other, despite their respective BMD efforts. China was never part of it. They were always a small player.

 

[STURM]

They were always a small player.

True but in the coming years that might change. China may not currently have enough nukes to wipe out the U.S. in the way Russia can or even nukes that have the range to reach the U.S. from mainland China, but the knowledge that it currently has a handful of nukes on its Jin class SSBN will play a big part in determining U.S. planning in event of a conflict over Taiwan or the South China Sea. Chinese nukes in the 70's, 80's and 90's were traditionally intended as a detterent to Russia and India, rather than the U.S.

 

[PCShogun]

True but in the coming years that might change. China may not currently have enough nukes to wipe out the U.S. in the way Russia can or even nukes that have the range to reach the U.S. from mainland China, but the knowledge that it currently has a handful of nukes on its Jin class SSBN will play a big part in determining U.S. planning in event of a conflict over Taiwan or the South China Sea. Chinese nukes in the 70's, 80's and 90's were traditionally intended as a detterent to Russia and India, rather than the U.S.

The last numbers I saw were that China had only about 20 Strategic warheads, with about 240 warheads total. I expect that number to increase now that Pakistan and India have both shown intentions to increase and update their arsenals.

Russia has about 2400 strategic warheads and the U.S. has about 1,968 "Active" strategic warheads. While that sounds like (and is) a lot, it is not enough to destroy Russia or the United States. Considering that in 2007, the United States had declared 4,626 active strategic weapons (ICBM's, SLBM's and Cruise Missiles) you can see how fast the nuclear inventories are dropping. While this seems to bode well for mankind's general survival on the planet, it seems to me that we are also slowly increasing the possibility that such a weapon will be used, albeit on a smaller scale.

Remember that most of the remaining weapons will be used to try and destroy the opposing weapons silos; not cities and infrastructure. Many weapons will miss, many will fail, and many may be intercepted. Several warheads will be deployed against the same target to ensure destruction. All of this means that chances of overall survival are increased and if so, what is to prevent me from using these weapons if I start to believe I can not only survive, but may actually "Win"?

Of course, none of this even matters when you throw in Rouge states. Iran, I think, would hesitate to use a nuclear weapon for fear of the retaliation it would incur (MAD still works here), but what about North Korea, where a single individual has the power to order such an attack. My hope is that someone lower on the food chain would step up and prevent that from happening.

Nuclear Weapons: Who Has What at a Glance | Arms Control Association

 

[gf0012-aust]

MAD was a construct based around state actors. That will not necessarily apply as a philosophy as soon as the club is breached by a non state actor. (in fact I'd argue its highly unlikely to be a consideration for a NSA or IMG player with nukes)

In addition, even amongst the nuke club, there are some uniforms in some of those countries who believe that a partial nuke war is achievable without escalating.

ie short sharo focussed delivery can achive a short term objective and then trigger international negotiations where they would suspend their action while the international community "resolves" the issue.

there has been a long held view that the hawks in mainland china subscribe to the limited war model

MAD has no "guarantees" today

 

[STURM]

Iran, I think, would hesitate to use a nuclear weapon for fear of the retaliation it would incur (MAD still works here)

Iran, if it ever gets a nuke weapons capability has no reason to launch it at anyone, contrary to what the neo cons and the establishment press would have us believe. It is intended to ensure that Western troops, with Sunni Arabs in tow, do not enter Tehran they way they did in Baghdad, at the head of an invasion force tasked with regime change.

but what about North Korea, where a single individual has the power to order such an attack.

The ''Dear Leader'' may indeed have the sole authority to decide on whether or not to use his ''special weapons' but there is no reason why he would do so as it would lead to his demise and would be counterproductive, as his policy is to stay in power. Contrary to how he may potray himself and how we view him, he is not an irrational crackpot and is very adapt at playing all the games he needs with the U.S., China, Japan and South Korea to ensure his regime stays in power.

In addition, even amongst the nuke club, there are some uniforms in some of those countries who believe that a partial nuke war is achievable without escalating.

Do you personally think this is possible? That common sense will prevail and despite the use of nukes on a limited scale, things would not escalate to the point where countries would cease to exist?

 

[gf0012-aust]

Do you personally think this is possible? That common sense will prevail and despite the use of nukes on a limited scale, things would not escalate to the point where countries would cease to exist?

the punchline here is "common sense".

when you're dealing with "hawks" you've already entered a different mindset

 

[Feanor]

MAD was a construct based around state actors. That will not necessarily apply as a philosophy as soon as the club is breached by a non state actor. (in fact I'd argue its highly unlikely to be a consideration for a NSA or IMG player with nukes)

In addition, even amongst the nuke club, there are some uniforms in some of those countries who believe that a partial nuke war is achievable without escalating.

ie short sharo focussed delivery can achive a short term objective and then trigger international negotiations where they would suspend their action while the international community "resolves" the issue.

there has been a long held view that the hawks in mainland china subscribe to the limited war model

MAD has no "guarantees" today

China has so few nukes, that they can't do anything but a limited nuclear war. They don't have enough strategic potential to pierce the Moscow regional BMD. Once the US goes ahead with strategic BMD, they will become borderline irrelevant.

 

[gf0012-aust]

China has so few nukes, that they can't do anything but a limited nuclear war. They don't have enough strategic potential to pierce the Moscow regional BMD. Once the US goes ahead with strategic BMD, they will become borderline irrelevant.

the issue is whether they regard it as irrelevant. i'd argue that they will still regard a limited war using even tactical battlefield nukes rather than continental nukes as a way to achieve a short term gain and to force their enemy to the negotiation table.

political will and military intent counts more than logic for an enemy with tactical purpose

 

[PCShogun]

I don't believe MAD ever really applied to China, although I still expect them to increase the numbers of warheads as its neighbors, India and Pakistan, do likewise. Chinese deterrent, and as STURM points out, possibly Iran's, is that they could cause considerable damage, although not annihilation, to any enemy who attacks them. U.S. and Russia could definitely sustain an attack of 20 or so warheads and respond with a decisive 2nd strike. MAD has been particular between Russia and the U.S, Great Britain, and possibly French nuclear alliance. However, with smaller arsenals being deployed in other nations, and the unilateral removal of weapons from the U.S. and Russian armories, I believe MAD is, or will soon be, lost as a deterrent between these two powers.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Pertinent to the debate:

US worries over China's underground nuclear network
US worries over China's underground nuclear network
Oct 14 06:18 PM US/Eastern

A leading US lawmaker who fears budget cuts could delay modernizing the US nuclear arsenal voiced concern Friday about an extensive tunnel complex designed to house Chinese nuclear missiles.

"This network of tunnels could be in excess of 5,000 kilometers (3,110 miles), and is used to transport nuclear weapons and forces," said Michael Turner, who chairs a House Armed Services Committee panel focusing on strategic weapons and other security programs.

"As we strive to make our nuclear forces more transparent, China is building this underground tunnel system to make its nuclear forces even more opaque," he added, citing an unclassified Department of Defense report.

Experts also expressed their concern about the network, whose existence was revealed by official Chinese media in late 2009.

The tunnels would allow China to launch a nuclear counter-attack if it was hit by a nuclear strike. "It's almost mind-boggling," said Mark Schneider, senior analyst at the National Institute for Public Policy.

"It has enormous implications in terms of their view toward nuclear warfare, survivability of their systems and their leadership in the event of war.

"It is virtually impossible to target anything like that, irrespective of how many nuclear weapons you have," he added.

Richard Fisher of the International Assessment and Strategy Center said the tunnel complex could allow the Chinese army to conceal its weapons.

"Do we really know how many missiles the Chinese have today?" he asked.

Turner expressed concern that planned cuts to the Pentagon could block efforts to modernize the US arsenal.

"We need to understand the potential long-term consequences of watching as Russia and China modernize their nuclear arsenal while we sit back and simply maintain our existing and aging nuclear forces," he warned.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Pertinent to the debate:

China Reform Monitor No. 924 October 13, 2011
American Foreign Policy Council, Washington, DC
Russia deploy missiles to Far East to "counter" China

September 25:

Russia’s latest tactical missile, the Iskander-M, has successfully been tested at Kapustin Yar rocket development range in Astrakhan Oblast. “China possesses a vast quantity of tactical missiles and we simply have nothing to counter it with today. Missiles capable of delivering a lethal load over a distance of 500 km will be a serious deterrent. In the Far East we need to arm at least five or six brigades with Iskanders,” said Aleksandr Khramchikhin, deputy head of Russia’s Institute of Political and Military Analysis. Iskanders capable of firing 500-600 km will also be able to reach American missile defense complexes in Poland and Romania. During the test a “combined-arms engagement” two Iskander-M missiles, Tochka-U tactical missiles and Smerch multiple rockets scored a “precision hit” on an “enemy bunker” reducing it to “craters and liquefied earth” according to eyewitness accounts in the Russian newspaper Izvestiya.

[Editor’s Note: It is rare for Russian officials or military experts to publicly acknowledge that they are monitoring and responding China’s military buildup. However, a recent report by the Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College concluded that Russia’s expansion of its military activities in the Far East is aimed at China. Russia is also planning a major upgrading of cruisers that will be equipped with ship-to-ship missiles and deployed with the Pacific Fleet.]

 

[tonyget]

China never release any official numbers of nukes they have, no one knows how many nukes they have except guessing.

 

[gf0012-aust]

China never release any official numbers of nukes they have, no one knows how many nukes they have except guessing.

apart from the fact that chinas claims on numbers against equipment have always been understated, it's why countries have inteligence analysts.

the fact that there is no trnsparency is part of the problem. for all the faults that were in the ccp/west open exchange protocols and programs, at least either side allowed and formalised having observors to validate.

china doesn't have the basics of such an agreement in place. they're more paranoid than the soviets ever were...

 

[ltdanjuly10]

There are two primary lines of thought when It comes to nuclear deterrence strategy

1. Counter-Force: This strategy entails primary targeting of the opposing powers Strategic weapons (Silos, Strategic bomber bases, sub pens etc), with communication, command and control and the command authority of the enemy taking a high priority as well. The destruction of major population centers is not a priority at all but collateral damage is likely due to both the effects of the weapons themselves and the location of strategic targets.

In order to pursue a Counter-Force strategy, MIRVed ICBMs with a high degree of accuracy or a larger number of ICBMs with mega ton yield devices to make up for the lack of accuracy are necessary. Super-Hardened silos or mobile launchers are needed in order to withstand a first strike and a well protected command authority that is able to communicate launcher orders post-strike (In the eventuality that the authorization for release did not come until to late)

Counter force was the official US policy from the Carter administration until at least the (1st) Bush administration. It should be noted that both US and Russian warheads are geared towards a counter-force strategy. Kilo-Ton Yield weapons can do a lot of damage to a city but with the accuracy of current weapons it is clear that the optimal target would be a silo.

2. Counter-Value (Commonly known as Mutual Assured Destruction)
In this apocalyptic policy, the large population centers of the enemy are targeted, economic/Industrial targets take a high priority as well. The Idea being that the enemy will know that by attacking you his nation itself will suffer the most possible damage. The only good thing about a Counter-Value strike is that with air-bursts the amount of fallout is greatly reduced. Of course your enemy might just ground burst a couple to keep that effect in play

An easy enough strategy implement as your targets a large and soft (and oh so very vulnerable to an Air-Burst) thus great accuracy is not needed (larger warheads, City Busters with a 1 MT warhead are most common but City Killers with a 10-20MT would be best).

Back to the original question Is MAD (Counter-Value) Still viable. Yes It is, even one nuclear warhead striking a major city would collapse even a robust economy, demoralize the population and reduce an enemies war fighting capability.

Politicians, Generals and even those poor bored bastards manning the weapons all recognize this. In spite of the picture that popular culture depicts of those who are providing deterrence, no sane or educated human being would initiate a nuclear war. Madmen, zealots and Idiots don't run the any of the major powers (or at least are not in total control of the weapons) .

The reason we still have these weapons is that the genie is out of the bottle and he will never go back in. The surest way to prevent a nuclear war is to plan to fight one, If your enemy thinks that you can respond effectively than he will never start one in the first place. Just as long as you maintain your early warning systems and the Norwegians don't try and spark oblivion with a rocket humanity should be ok.

 

[PCShogun]

Back to the original question Is MAD (Counter-Value) Still viable. Yes It is, even one nuclear warhead striking a major city would collapse even a robust economy, demoralize the population and reduce an enemies war fighting capability.

Probably the best answer I have seen so far. It does, however, fail to answer the critical point of MAD. Which is: Is mutual destruction ASSURED?

 

[ltdanjuly10]

Considering that nobody has made a warshot over the north pole where magnetics would potentially screw with the guidance, even the CEP of a reentry vehicle is not a sure thing.

The first generation of polaris SLBMs had dud warheads, by the time the boomer crowd found out about this a significant portion of the US deterrent force had been sailing around with them. ICBMs are very complex, every so often they will fire a test missile but this should not be taken as an accurate indication of the reliability of the force. Test missiles are repaired, visually inspected and checked multipul times before launch, active missiles while periodically receiving maintenance must make a launch with only an electronic test, with no opportunity to make repairs if a fault is detected.

Bombers may not get through, warheads that have only been test on computer simulators may fail, the people making the decision to retaliate may hesitate until to late. Maybe a first strike will have taken out the decision makers or the comms, or the means to retaliate. Nothing is certain in war, nuclear war is far less certain (since nobody's seen fit to throw one). A large part of why deterrence works is that nothing is certain. So no mutual destruction is not assurred (outside of a doomsday device) but neither is a first strike

 

[SABRE]

Probably the best answer I have seen so far. It does, however, fail to answer the critical point of MAD. Which is: Is mutual destruction ASSURED?

That is a good question and the answer lies at the core of MAD theory, that is to have an ASSURED 2ND STRIKE CAPABILITY. Since nuclear submarines are immune to land attacks and first strikes and their movements are unpredictable they are the best tool to assure a 2nd strike (response) and hence assure mutual destruction.

 

[PCShogun]

That is a good question and the answer lies at the core of MAD theory, that is to have an ASSURED 2ND STRIKE CAPABILITY. Since nuclear submarines are immune to land attacks and first strikes and their movements are unpredictable they are the best tool to assure a 2nd strike (response) and hence assure mutual destruction.

In a Dec. 15, 2009 letter to President Barack Obama, a group of Republican Senators stated that “we don’t believe further nuclear arsenal reductions can be in the national security interest of the U.S. in the absence of a significant program to modernize our nuclear deterrent. While plans to build new D5 missiles at a rate of 5 per year, were later announced, the new arms reduction treaty has reduced the number of missiles allowed to 280, from 685. Meaning our current fleet of SSBN's will have 4 empty launch tubes, per sub, going forward.

Also, the Ohio class replacement program, SSBN-X, slated to get in gear in 2012, has already been earmarked as a potential casualty of the upcoming budget wars, and so the current SSBN fleet will need to be modernized to extend its service life past 2025, into an environment where Russia and China are building new SSBN's using the latest of their technologies.

Some talk is going on about creating a variant of the planned Virginia class to extends the hull and mount launch tubes in it, instead of using a separate and dedicated class of boomers. Since part of the SSBN's stealth is based on the sheer size of the vessel, I'm not sure how retrofitting a fast attack does the same job in making it harder to detect. I'll let you bubble heads answer that question though.

At least the old W87 warheads are getting a computer upgrade.

It is also interesting that the FY 2011 budget request and five-year defense plan included funding for a new generation long-range bomber, to be developed by 2018. I have not seen any information on whether this new bomber would be nuclear capable or not though.

Source:
IHSJanes Defense and Security Analysis.
Letter to President Barack Obama, Dec. 15, 2009
Global Security Newswire
Summary of the DoD Fiscal 2011 Budget Proposal
Arms Control Association

 

[SABRE]

In a Dec. 15, 2009 letter to President Barack Obama, a group of Republican Senators stated that “we don’t believe further nuclear arsenal reductions can be in the national security interest of the U.S. in the absence of a significant program to modernize our nuclear deterrent. While plans to build new D5 missiles at a rate of 5 per year, were later announced, the new arms reduction treaty has reduced the number of missiles allowed to 280, from 685. Meaning our current fleet of SSBN's will have 4 empty launch tubes, per sub, going forward.

Republicans are just politicizing the issue, but that's what their job is. The fact is that U.S has made modernization efforts then disarmament in the nuclear weapons department. U.S nuclear strategy is no longer focusing on MAD as it appears (there is no USSR) but focusing more on precision and counter force. Given the current/prevailing situation for empty launch tubes hardly matter.

Also, the Ohio class replacement program, SSBN-X, slated to get in gear in 2012, has already been earmarked as a potential casualty of the upcoming budget wars, and so the current SSBN fleet will need to be modernized to extend its service life past 2025, into an environment where Russia and China are building new SSBN's using the latest of their technologies.

China and Russia are having their own problems with their nuclear submarines and submarine launched ballistic missiles. Based on open sources analysis they are still far from coming up with a submarine fleet which would drastically shift the balance in their favor or challenge U.S. in the international waters.

Some talk is going on about creating a variant of the planned Virginia class to extends the hull and mount launch tubes in it, instead of using a separate and dedicated class of boomers. Since part of the SSBN's stealth is based on the sheer size of the vessel, I'm not sure how retrofitting a fast attack does the same job in making it harder to detect. I'll let you bubble heads answer that question though.

My personal opinion is Virginia class with nuclear tipped cruise missile along with life extended Ohio class are enough to fill the gap for SSBN-X till 2025. Unless, China and Russia are able to come up with more advance subs. Right now I doubt they could even come close to making anything like Virginia.