Russian President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday signed a revised nuclear doctrine declaring that a conventional attack on Russia by any nation that is supported by a nuclear power will be considered a joint attack on his country.

The signing of the doctrine, which says that any massive aerial attack on Russia could trigger a nuclear response, reflects Putin’s readiness to threaten use of the country’s nuclear arsenal to force the West to back down as Moscow presses a slow-moving offensive in Ukraine.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Zron@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago (1 children)

You know the US also has a launch on wanting policy.

If any of the billion dollar spy satellites see an ICBM launch that’s even vaguely going towards the US, we launch an overwhelming response.

Russia isn’t going to drop a few nukes and waltz away, because the US has the same system or better in place already. Especially if Russia hits a nato country, we’re all gonna die due to MAD. One bomb breaks MAD.

[–] JustZ@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

The US does not have a launch-on-warning system in place.

while the United States maintains the capability to launch nuclear forces under conditions of an ongoing nuclear attack, it does not rely on a launch-under-attack policy to ensure a credible response. Rather, U.S. nuclear forces are postured to withstand an initial attack. In all cases, the United States will maintain a human “in the loop” for all actions critical to informing and executing decisions by the President to initiate and terminate nuclear weapon employment.

https://media.defense.gov/2022/Oct/27/2003103845/-1/-1/1/2022-NATIONAL-DEFENSE-STRATEGY-NPR-MDR.pdf

[–] Doom@ttrpg.network 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The US absolutely has a missile warning system

[–] JustZ@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Yes thank you. What I said was that our warning system is not our trigger. Our triggers have people pulling them. I went back and hyphenated it properly for you.

Unlike Russian nuclear policy in this regard, known a Dead Hand aka Permitr, where the warning system is also the trigger.

[–] Doom@ttrpg.network 1 points 1 month ago

Heard makes sense now. I only browse stoned lol

[–] Zron@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Just because it’s not mechanically automatic, does not mean it’s not a launch on warning system.

The key phrase there is “it does not rely on a launch-under-attack policy to ensure credible defense”

If the US detects a ICBM launch, it will launch a response. It does not matter if the thing that presses the button is a person or an automated program.

Launch on warning just means a country won’t physically absorb a nuclear strike before launching, but will launch if an enemy launch is detected. It has nothing to do with automatic launch systems.

[–] JustZ@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Oh I see what you're saying, I thought the term was more literal than you're suggesting.

I suppose the US president could launch a retaliatory strike based on a first strike that is still in the air, which is launch on warning, but the policy is to wait for a first strike and then have the president issue an order.

My understaning of launch on warning is any policy with no discretion, based on standing orders, not that it was necessarily strictly computer automated. The US policy is "hair trigger alert" which means that the strike systems are constantly in ready state, awaiting a valid order.

All I mean to say is that this is unlike the Russian system, which upon detecting an incoming missile issues valid, pre-approved orders to launch, with perhaps a human needed only to turn the key, but with no built in discretion once the pre-approved order is authenticated. The US does not have pre-approved launch orders.