this post was submitted on 03 Mar 2024
426 points (94.0% liked)

World News

39023 readers
2488 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jettrscga@lemmy.world 6 points 8 months ago (5 children)

I've legitimately been curious about this. The nuclear arms race has been a threat for so long, do western countries really not have a mitigation strategy for them?

I assume we could shoot down any intercontinental weapons, and any airplane that entered allied airspace would immediately be shot down before it could drop a nuke.

[–] Anti_Face_Weapon@lemmy.world 11 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Intercontinental nukes basically can't be shot down. This is because both sides can launch hundreds of rockets, each carrying multiple very small warheads. It's basically impossible to intercept.

[–] ricdeh@lemmy.world -1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

But can you not also just scale up the defense systems in parallel with the ballistic missiles carrying warheads? If we can expend billions for the construction of thousands of intercontinental missiles, can we then not also build tens of thousands of interceptors, maybe a handful for each potential incoming nuke?

[–] Aqarius@lemmy.world 6 points 8 months ago

This isn't a new idea, it's been around sinde Reagan, and the consensus is that it's just non-viable.

[–] AnAngryAlpaca@feddit.de 11 points 8 months ago

You could probably shoot down 80% or maybe even 90%. But if the enemy launches a few hundred missiles at the same time then some might make it.

[–] LifeOfChance@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Let's say we do, wouldn't it be smarter as the government to keep the rumor up that we would indeed be screwed but on the day they decided to go nuclear we just laugh and show them our power?

[–] jettrscga@lemmy.world 8 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist, that's why I've been curious.

I'm pretty confident we wouldn't show our hand on that defense strategy, but there's no way there's not a plan for it. It's obviously better for everyone to avoid a need for that strategy in case it doesn't work perfectly.

[–] Olap@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

It's opposite MAD theorem. If neither side knows that there are countermeasures then neither side will launch a first strike, as they then run the risk of being knocked out in essence.

Ever play defcon? First to launch rarely wins there

[–] kandoh@reddthat.com 2 points 8 months ago

A 99% success rate for shooting down ICBMs would still be a catastrophic failure that would set us back hundreds of years.

We're seeing it now in the middle eat and Ukraine. US Air Defense equipment is the best in the world but not impenetrable.

Not even considering that a nuclear submarine can just surface off the coast and destroy the nearest city.

[–] Icalasari@kbin.social 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Issue is that multiple countries have systems where it's, "They launched nukes? We'll launch all our nukes"

The mitigation is basically, "We will wipe you off the map if we think even ONE nuke is coming at us," and this has nearly happened several times, only stopped because the system has a human at the final step, and humans when realizing they could end the world seem to hesitate