Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

MikeM32 · Jul 16, 2002, 02:10 AM

Your submarine is damaged, the antennae is hit and may not be working properly.

Your commanding officer receives a message fragment. The message fragment suggests launching all missiles.

Do you launch all missiles or do you wait for a complete message?

ThinkInsane · Jul 16, 2002, 02:14 AM

I saw that movie, and I agree with Denzel. You can't just go and laaunch your missles on a hunch. that's how nuclear wars get started. That's a bad, bad thing. There are plenty more big ol' bombs out there, nobody would miss a couple if it was a real war...

Dan_Smith · Jul 16, 2002, 02:54 AM

Fortunately, such a scenario cannot ever happen in real life -- trust me. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> (Oh, and most U.S. submarines -- well, every one that puts to sea on patrol -- have redundant communications systems and methods by which they can be recieved, VLF, ELF, SatCom, etc.)

[EDIT]Skipjack, below, brings up a good point - Trident subs are not a first strike, or a surgical strike platform -- they were designed, from the beginning, as a primary element of the MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) doctrine of the Cold War. Most strategic nuclear weapons were not intended to strike population centers, as it would only waste the weapons effectiveness on bringing about high civilian casualties, instead, they were (are) targeted on nuclear weapons and high-value conventional military installations. Ideally, a pre-emptive strike would take out the enemy's nuclear arsenal, leaving them unable to retaliate. The Soviets focused, early on, on building a widely-disperesed land- and rail-based missile arsenal, with enough redundancy to (theoretically) survive an American/NATO first-strike (which was never a stated policy of the US & NATO, until recently). Not blessed with the massive land area of the Soviet Union, the U.S. chose to place its survivable retaliatory strike capability at sea, where it was incredibly mobile & likely to survive a Soviet first-strike. With the end of the Cold War, the mission of U.S. Nuclear Ballistic Missile Submarines have not changed. They still patrol in order to ensure a survivable retaliatory strike capability. No Commander in Chief, nor any of his Military Staff would ever, in their right mind, order a SLBM pre-emptive strike, knowing that each of the 12 Ohio-class boats in the U.S. fleet carries aboard more explosive power than was released in both the entirety of the two World Wars.

Lobbing nuclear missiles over, around, or at anyone who has not already lobbed one at you is a matter that would not be received well.

As much as I hate to say it, in the case of Crimson Tide, the Air Force would be much better suited to the job.

(Or a few sub-launched TLAMs -- Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles -- but the Navy no longer deploys TLAM-Ns.)[/EDIT]

[ 07-16-2002, 03:28 AM: Message edited by: Dan_Smith ]

skipjack · Jul 16, 2002, 03:12 AM

My guesses:

A sub has more than one antenna. The antenna I'd expect the message to come on would not likely be damaged. Even so, at the depth to launch missiles, I'd expect one of numerous backup systems to be available.

US ballistic missiles are not for first strike. What is the urgency for a retaliatory strike unless the launch platform is endangered?

Sure, everything on a nuclear sub is according to strict procedures. But look at many commanding officer decorations. They often praise the CO for using judgement to go against normally accepted practice to ensure the mission is completed. In this case, the mission is to launch upon receipt of a verified order. Again, unless the platform is endangered, any premature action would be reckless.

MacGorilla · Jul 16, 2002, 10:14 AM

A "fragment" of a message wouldn't be enough to enable a sub to launch a nuclear strike. There are many check and balances in place (there is a good article in Time last year about this).

MacGorilla · Jul 16, 2002, 10:15 AM

Oh and an XO can't order the launch in any case. The Captain has to begin the initial phbase anyway, not his first officer.

driven · Jul 16, 2002, 10:56 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Dan_Smith:
Lobbing nuclear missiles over, around, or at anyone who has not already lobbed one at you is a matter that would not be received well.
[/EDIT]<hr /></blockquote>Hell, lobbing NON-nuclear missles over or around anyone isn't received well. Remember how pissed Japan was when North Korea lobbed one over mainland Japan a few years back?