I think something people forget too is while ICBMs are largely thought of as nuclear weapons there no reason they HAVE to be. The same delivery systems could be used for conventional weapons it just usually isnt worth the cost. But it might be for extremely tactically important targets that are far enough away. Especially if you already have thousands of them like Russia does.
I get why you might think that, but that same argument can be made about the missiles Ukraine has been shooting into Russia that were provided by the US. They’re perfectly capable of carrying a nuke, and Russia would have no way to know until it hits. So from Russia’s perspective we are already in the realm of playing with MAD. They have no reason not to do the same thing.
Also edit to add even IF it was confirmed to be a nuke Russa was launching if they target somewhere like Poland for example it’s very unlikely the US would launch their own nukes in that case. They’re not gonna risk the US mainland to save Poland. So when it comes to hitting non-nuclear NATO nations with ICBMs using conventional payloads its really just up to Russia if they want to try. MAD doesn’t work at all in that case.
yeah you could maybe do one that’s too small to be a nuke but at that point how much damage is it gonna do and you’re putting a shitload of trust in everyone else to identify that it can’t be a nuke
An non-nuclear ICBM strike would effectively destroy MAD since you can’t determine what is and isn’t a nuclear strike. Do a couple conventional salvos, then make one of them nuclear. Take out two legs of the triad then focus on defending against the subs in a retaliation strike.
Exactly, there’s a reason that civilian space agencies worldwide are very careful about notifying other governments about launch schedules and planned trajectories.
I think something people forget too is while ICBMs are largely thought of as nuclear weapons there no reason they HAVE to be. The same delivery systems could be used for conventional weapons it just usually isnt worth the cost. But it might be for extremely tactically important targets that are far enough away. Especially if you already have thousands of them like Russia does.
The problem is that you would have no way of knowing if it’s a nuclear strike or not. ICBMs will trigger MAD even if they are actually non nuclear.
I get why you might think that, but that same argument can be made about the missiles Ukraine has been shooting into Russia that were provided by the US. They’re perfectly capable of carrying a nuke, and Russia would have no way to know until it hits. So from Russia’s perspective we are already in the realm of playing with MAD. They have no reason not to do the same thing.
Also edit to add even IF it was confirmed to be a nuke Russa was launching if they target somewhere like Poland for example it’s very unlikely the US would launch their own nukes in that case. They’re not gonna risk the US mainland to save Poland. So when it comes to hitting non-nuclear NATO nations with ICBMs using conventional payloads its really just up to Russia if they want to try. MAD doesn’t work at all in that case.
yeah you could maybe do one that’s too small to be a nuke but at that point how much damage is it gonna do and you’re putting a shitload of trust in everyone else to identify that it can’t be a nuke
An non-nuclear ICBM strike would effectively destroy MAD since you can’t determine what is and isn’t a nuclear strike. Do a couple conventional salvos, then make one of them nuclear. Take out two legs of the triad then focus on defending against the subs in a retaliation strike.
Exactly, there’s a reason that civilian space agencies worldwide are very careful about notifying other governments about launch schedules and planned trajectories.
See the use of the Hazel IRBM in Ukraine, back in November of '24