5 ms·

In addition to the two actually dropped in Japan, the US and Russia have been close to accidentally firing nuclear weapons since then, in each case because they

by DHMO 10y ago

In addition to the two actually dropped in Japan, the US and Russia have been close to accidentally firing nuclear weapons since then, in each case because they thought they were getting ready to respond to what they thought was an aggressive act. It's just not a good idea to have nuclear weapons at all. So, instead of "no first use", I would just have a global agreement never to have or use nuclear weapons for any reason, not even for defense. Nuclear pulse propulsion should be allowed for spacecraft, however. This was outlawed years ago by the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_Nuclear_Test_Ban_Treaty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_Nuclear_Test_Ban_Treat... but would be much more efficient than other currently used methods and safe if used with clean bombs in space. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_pulse_propulsion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_pulse_propulsion Weapons by their nature will continue to escalate as long as technology improves, so if nuclear weapons continue to be allowed, time will surely bring a weapon even more destructive to counter them. Whether you believe they've brought peace or not, do you want someone to invent an even greater weapon and test it as the next "weapon of peace"? I don't.

gizmo686 10y ago
>including for spacecraft in space- something which was outlawed years ago. What are you talking about? NASA is facing a plutonium-238 shortage, but that is because we ran out of our stock-pile that was produced as a by-product of bomb manufacturing. Production of plutonium-238 started again back in 2013. The only international laws I could find regarding nuclear spacecraft seem to be reasonable safety requirement (eg, not crash into Earth while still radioactive). >So, instead of "no first use", I would just have a global agreement never to have or use nuclear weapons for any reason, even for a defensive strike. The problem is that this policy removes the main dynamic that has prevented use of nuclear weapons: the threat of reprisal. If a country (verifiably) agrees to never use nuclear weapons, then a bad actor country can safely break the agreement. Under the current system this does not happen, because that would lead to a nuclear counter attack.
- akiselev 10y ago
  NASA uses plutonium for radioisotope thermoelectric generators whereas the OP is talking about nuclear pulse propulsion, which uses the shockwave from nuclear warhead detonations to propel a spacecraft. These are two fundamentally different things. The latter is illegal in most countries because of the aforementioned Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, which bans any atmospheric or outer space detonations.
  - XorNot 10y ago
    Also unnecessary because thermal lightbulb rockets deliver better ISP.
    - akiselev 10y ago
      Yes but unfortunately after the UTC research was canceled all development on the nuclear lightbulb design was stopped while other methods of nuclear propulsion received at least some mindshare from theoreticians and engineers. The nuclear lightbulb now rots in the NASA technical archives. Most of the engineers who worked on it are dead and we haven't made much progress on the material science needed to pull it off (I.e. we still don't have a solution to neutron damage and runaway heating in the single crystal berrillium oxide sheath as well as a viable design for the fuel injector).
      - XorNot 10y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto But we did actually build prototype engines of a similar principle. There were actual mechanical artifacts test-fired. This is a much more viable looking option then Orion which only proved the pusher-plate design seems viable on a small scale, and which is unlikely to ever clear the problem of "build a lot of nuclear weapons...then deliberately start setting them off".
netheril96 10y ago
> I would just have a global agreement never to have or use nuclear weapons for any reason, not even for defense. And how would that be enforced?
- DHMO 10y ago
  The same we enforce it now- with nuclear regulation, e.g. http://www.nrc.gov/ http://www.nrc.gov/ http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/ip/intl-organizations.html#INRA http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/ip/intl-organizations.html#INRA https://www.iaea.org/ https://www.iaea.org/ http://www.nea.fr/ http://www.nea.fr/
  - netheril96 10y ago
    Do you really think any of these organizations have the power to "regulate" the nuclear weapons of the United States, Russia, or China?

by DHMO 10y ago

gizmo686 10y ago

>including for spacecraft in space- something which was outlawed years ago. What are you talking about? NASA is facing a plutonium-238 shortage, but that is because we ran out of our stock-pile that was produced as a by-product of bomb manufacturing. Production of plutonium-238 started again back in 2013. The only international laws I could find regarding nuclear spacecraft seem to be reasonable safety requirement (eg, not crash into Earth while still radioactive). >So, instead of "no first use", I would just have a global agreement never to have or use nuclear weapons for any reason, even for a defensive strike. The problem is that this policy removes the main dynamic that has prevented use of nuclear weapons: the threat of reprisal. If a country (verifiably) agrees to never use nuclear weapons, then a bad actor country can safely break the agreement. Under the current system this does not happen, because that would lead to a nuclear counter attack.

akiselev 10y ago
NASA uses plutonium for radioisotope thermoelectric generators whereas the OP is talking about nuclear pulse propulsion, which uses the shockwave from nuclear warhead detonations to propel a spacecraft. These are two fundamentally different things. The latter is illegal in most countries because of the aforementioned Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, which bans any atmospheric or outer space detonations.
- XorNot 10y ago
  Also unnecessary because thermal lightbulb rockets deliver better ISP.
  - akiselev 10y ago
    Yes but unfortunately after the UTC research was canceled all development on the nuclear lightbulb design was stopped while other methods of nuclear propulsion received at least some mindshare from theoreticians and engineers. The nuclear lightbulb now rots in the NASA technical archives. Most of the engineers who worked on it are dead and we haven't made much progress on the material science needed to pull it off (I.e. we still don't have a solution to neutron damage and runaway heating in the single crystal berrillium oxide sheath as well as a viable design for the fuel injector).
    - XorNot 10y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto But we did actually build prototype engines of a similar principle. There were actual mechanical artifacts test-fired. This is a much more viable looking option then Orion which only proved the pusher-plate design seems viable on a small scale, and which is unlikely to ever clear the problem of "build a lot of nuclear weapons...then deliberately start setting them off".

netheril96 10y ago

> I would just have a global agreement never to have or use nuclear weapons for any reason, not even for defense. And how would that be enforced?

DHMO 10y ago
The same we enforce it now- with nuclear regulation, e.g. http://www.nrc.gov/ http://www.nrc.gov/ http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/ip/intl-organizations.html#INRA http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/ip/intl-organizations.html#INRA https://www.iaea.org/ https://www.iaea.org/ http://www.nea.fr/ http://www.nea.fr/
- netheril96 10y ago
  Do you really think any of these organizations have the power to "regulate" the nuclear weapons of the United States, Russia, or China?