Nornagest comments on Rationality Quotes September 2013 - Less Wrong

5 Post author: Vaniver 04 September 2013 05:02AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (456)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Nornagest 04 September 2013 02:18:08AM *  3 points [-]

From a strategic perspective the initial significance of the atomic bomb was to skew air warfare even further toward the attacking side. As early as the Thirties, strategic bombing had been understood to favor attackers -- the phrase at the time was "the bomber will always get through" -- but the likes of Tokyo and Dresden required massive effort, hundreds of bombers flying near-concurrent sorties. After the invention of the atomic bomb, that was no longer true -- bomber groups that earlier would have been considered trivial now could destroy cities. Suddenly there was no acceptable penetration of air defenses.

Still, defensive efforts continued. Surface-to-air missiles were a great improvement over anti-aircraft gunnery, and nuclear-armed missiles like the AIM-26 were intended to provide high kill probabilities in a defensive role or even take out entire formations at a shot. The development of ICBMs in the late Fifties and early Sixties may have led to more extensive changes in strategy; these could not be effectively stopped by air defenses (though anti-ballistic missile programs continued until the START treaties killed them), leaving mutually assured destruction as the main defensive option.

Comment author: Lumifer 04 September 2013 02:28:26AM 1 point [-]

the phrase at the time was "the bomber will always get through"

That was before the radar, though.

(though anti-ballistic missile programs continued until the START treaties killed them)

ABM programs are alive and well at the moment. The US withdrew from the ABM treaty with Russia in 2002.

Comment author: Nornagest 04 September 2013 02:35:02AM *  1 point [-]

That was before the radar, though.

The radar changed tactics and contributed to some successful defenses, but I don't think it had much long-term effect on the overall strategic balance. We can use the strategic bombing of Germany during WWII for comparison: before the Axis possessed radar, bombers had been distributed as widely as possible so that few could be predictably intercepted. After, bombers were concentrated into a stream to overwhelm local air defenses. This proved effective, although Allied air superiority had largely been established by that time. The development of long-range radar-guided air-to-air or surface-to-air missiles, or for that matter better fire control radars, would have changed things back in the defenders' favor, but by that point nuclear weapons had already made their mark.

ABM programs are alive and well at the moment.

Quite, but I didn't want to clutter an already long comment with post-Cold War development.