The obsolescence of Mutually Assured Destruction

Are we reaching a new era yet seen since the emergence of modern warfare, especially since the beginning of the atomic age, where defense or rather, the shield. Will become stronger than the sword? In terms of nuclear war. Will next generation laser defense systems both ground based and sea based render, at the very least, strategic level nuclear warfare obsolete? Thus replacing the reigning doctrine of MAD with something else?

We are finally reaching a point where laser defense systems can actually effectively target, engage, and destroy fast moving projectiles from afar. The most important factors being that not only are they becoming more powerful, planned to be within the 100's of kilowatts, with some possibly being able to attain megawatt capabilities. But also the fact they they can be small enough to fit in the back of, albeit a large, truck like a HEMTT. Imagine a new defense program that connects entire batteries of these laser defense platforms into the powergrid(probably would want their own supply but fuck it for now) of every major city and every major strategic target site. Even MIRV'd ICBM's releasing counter-measures would be able to be dealt with on a national level. Would these concepts become real in the near future, or does laser technology still have a long way to go until it could be used to this degree? If this does become a possibility, how would this change world politics and foreign diplomacy? Obviously with the looming threat of MAD no longer being an issue. What would stop to nations like the US and Russia getting a bit more "sporty" with each other over land gra- I mean foreign interventions? What does Jow Forums think?

Attached: comfy.gif (642x414, 3.35M)

The idea that MAD is obsolete is a propaganda meme intended to normalize the use of low yield nukes against non-peer opponents. MAD is still very much a thing between nuclear armed nations.

>normalize the use of low yield nukes against non-peer opponents
I'm listening

Attached: Nuke Yuuri.gif (225x320, 2.2M)

The kind of laser defenses you are talking about won't be ready for a number of years yet, and even then, they are untested. And by that time there will be new weapons to deliver nukes, thus maintaining MAD

> does laser technology still have a long way to go until it could be used to this degree

yes but it's the future. this is what 5th gen war will be: cybernetic laser defense grids dueling to punch holes and let the hypersonic swarms in.

The future of war is C Y B E R

Attached: the raddest fucking kid ever.jpg (560x1000, 67K)

>there will be new weapons to deliver nukes
What would do the job of delivering a nuke better than a rocket?

Cannon, army has an active program to develop a 1000 mile cannon. Sure it can be intercepted. But you can make follow up shots. And who knows what else, it's the future, there could be anything invented

That implies any other country possesses the amount of nukes comparable to the US. China MIGHT come close.

>inb4 Russia has that many

They have a GDP less than the Republic of Texas

What will ground warfare be like in this?

China is nowhere close to having enough nukes to be in consideration, nor do they have the uranium to create a stockpile the size of America or Russia. And Russia has a GDP less than that of fucking Canada, their only saving grace is the unholy stockpile of Soviet era equipment

Hyper-enabled infiltration with engineering elements. Covert light infantry shielded with infowar will deploy into enemy bastions for last-second betrayal, data insertion, and snatch-and-grabs. Regular heavy mech battle networks will exist and be terrifyingly effective but never get used against states - land maneuver will be too slow to decide wars.

Russia has literally a GDP less than the state of California or Texas ALONE.

Sounds pretty quantum. What I think would happen is Armies, from, well, Armies, down to Battalions would be armed and equipped with stand off "fuck off" weapons. Such as laser based C-RAM. This could essentially shield an entire battalion in combat from everything from saturation artillery, mortars, rocket artillery, to medium range tactical nuclear strikes.

So kinda like the magical force fields in Dune. If you wanna kill someone, you gotta get in close and stab a bitch. In this instance, if you wanna wipe out an entire Battalion. You gotta either target and eliminate the defensive systems that protect it, or you gotta do it the old fashioned way. By out maneuvering it with your own Battalions to commit heavy attrition rates via good ol shoot em in the face with a gun technique. I feel like if this became reality, shits gonna get pretty fucking violent out there.

Attached: solve everything with violence.jpg (427x430, 44K)

War becomes so advanced we are forced to resort to medieval sword and bayonet fights, awesome

their GDP is irelevant, these weapons were build in the soviet union time and so all the tech and know how was developed in that time as well, they only need enough money for the govt to keep them and upgrade them, they are not starting a whole program from zero to build thousands of nukes per year for gdp to matter

>upkeep on a missile designed to launch a payload to the other side of the fucking planet doesn't cost money

Ok retard

Is everyone forgetting that supersonic, nuclear tipped cruise missiles with low altitude terrain following radar is old, well understood technology? Do you all realize how close the US was to fielding SLAM, for instance? So what if you have ICBM interceptors, or orbital lasers or what have you, if those are ever fielded in numbers large enough to threaten current nuclear arsenals with obsolescence, countries will simply reneg on their treaty obligations and start building weapons that dramatically increase the cost of comprehensive defense to the point where we end up with MAD again anyway.

Case in point with the resurgence of medium and intermediate range missiles. Hard to shoot something down when you only have 15 minutes to react

Right, and they're even cheaper than ICBMs so you can build so many of them that it would impose an enormous financial burden upon the defender, and even if the defender had a 10:1or even 100:1 advantage in interceptors, that still means that there's a seriously uncomfortable possibility that one missile could get through and kill millions of people. All it takes is one.

That sounds less like warfare and more like espionage on a large scale.

Could argue that MAD is obsolete because increasing interpenetration of societies is improving the chance for success of pre-emptive decapitation strikes.

As in, it was easier to take down Gaddafi once he "joined the club" and let agentur into his organization. All that yap about the Russians from the DNC has some basis, it would never have happened 35 years ago.

So Texas could build nukes if they put their minds to it.

And to build upon this, the attacker doesn't even need to make every missile nuclear, they could swarm the battlespace with cheap conventional missiles and create such a target rich environment that targeting prioritization would be a nightmare.

That meme laser better not set the nuke off because nukes are arguably more destructive when they go off above you, fallout spreads more and most electronics will be destroyed instantly killing tons of people with pacemakers, life support, no insulin etc.

There needs to be a very exact explosion in order to trigger the fission reaction. A laser would never be able to do that. And actually the higher the weapon detonates, the less fallout there is, after all fallout is just irradiated debris. A nuke that is detonated in a laydown mode, or at ground level will cause far more damage. Either the emp gets them or they become charcoal briquette.

Guys, I just had a great idea.
>be insane ruler of nuclear armed country
>load a few ICBMs with literal garbage
>launch at enemy
>they launch real nukes
>you launch real nukes
>they claim you started it
>cell phone videos prove your cities were hit first
>international community sides with you
>further consolidate political power
Do you think it will work?

15 minutes was a long time in the past, but the longest delay in modern systems is the human element. A fully networked theatre running on full autonomy can decide in milliseconds and is mainly limited by lag and slew rates.

Are you...Are you the King of Saudi Arabia?

Yeah. Power will swing back away from the people (who dominate 4GW) to the states (who can afford the infrastructure needed to make surveillance/fires grids work at speed).

You fucking dumbass

We can track exactly what type of nuke, where it came from, and what's going to happen when it hits, so no.


Attached: pathetic shadow.jpg (1000x773, 479K)

Can you even track your pizza from order to delivery?

>missiles with low altitude terrain following radar
Anything going fast enough to escape modern anti-missile tech would burn up at low altitude no matter what it's made of.

>he doesn't engage in divine cybernetic supremacy warfare

How about two?

Retard who thinks GDP matters for a govt

um no sweety
icbms terminate at mach 20. unguided reentry will always be faster than firing guided missles

Your mom terminates at mach 69

Attached: YUH moving at hihg speed.jpg (640x632, 212K)

If the propaganda about the Maginot line didn't exist we would have had decades of development on permanent fortification technology throughout the cold war, Only possibly slowing down with the proliferation of precision guided munitions only to regain traction as active protection systems proliferate.

Attached: 1562531693073.jpg (3721x2689, 3.81M)

OP, are you forgetting the reason offensive side of nuke weapons is stagnate compared to defensive solutions is mainly due how nuclear weapons testing, especially by a big nation, will trigger endless screaming and bitching by everyone else? It's not like we live in an age of limited surveillance, even an underground test will trigger and eventually draw attention.
In the mean time, defensive platforms don't bring out the same warning bells and countries just go nuts with developing whatever they can think of. Sure, you'll get angry responses from particular countries that have a direct rivalry with you (Russia bitching about US trying to develop nuke defense), but it's not going to draw the same level of attention if say US were to showcase some new fangled nuke delivery method, that shit will set off not only condemnation for reversing on the current course of disarmament direction, but you bet your ass it'll just give justification for the other big nuclear countries to just start openly developing their own new delivery methods.

None of that is relevant if the cruise missiles are flying below the radar.