posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 09:18 AM
I tend to disagree DuesEx for exactly some of the reasons you point out. The heavily militarized nations (US, former USSR, China and Western Europe)
have significantly more sophisticated launch detection and tracking capabilities. Any massive attack would necessitate ICBM's. The origin and
targets of these could be determined accurately within just a minute or so of their 20min+/- flights. That gives the nation on the receiving side
ample time to launch a devastating counter attack. What nation could survive that?
Let's say, for discussion, China decides to go for it. We detect launches but at the same time China's subs start SLBM launches. Our hunter-killer
subs detect the preparations to launch. They know they are Chinese (by their sonar signatures). Some will successfully launch others will be
sunk in the process. In the meantime our SLBM's, ICBM.s and longrange nuclear bombers would proceed to devastate every Chinese city, seaport,
industrial center, power generation facility, military installation, airport and anything else of value. Our roaming hunter-killer subs would
proceed to sink every Chinese vessle they could find. Others, having been tracked by satellite since leaving port, would be attacked by cruise
missles. We would be heavily damaged, no doubt. But the attacking country would be devasted as well. Who wins? No country would risk it. There's
simply no margin in it.
There are very few countries in the world that have sufficient nuclear stockpiles to be able to launch a truly devastating attack. Those with a small
number of weapons would essentially be erased if they decided to attack us. So again, I don't believe the 50's/60's MAD scenario is at all likely
in this day and age. Not impossible, mind you, but a far smaller risk than it was back then. I reiterate my concern, however, that a non-affiliated
organization (like al-Qeda) would be willing to attack us by pre-positioning weapons. Who would we retaliate against? They aren't a country.