22 ms·

I recently finished Command and Control: Nuclear Weapons, the Damascus Accident, and the Illusion of Safety [0]. I can't recommend the book enough for how eye

• fokinsean 9y ago
  Thanks, you just reminded me about this book. Gonna pick it up this weekend! Lately I have been feeling very anxious about the North Korea situation, but for some reason reading about nuclear accidents, close-calls, stories, etc. calms me in a morbid way. I guess it has to do with "facing your fears" or something like that.
• abandonliberty 9y ago
  Hey it's not all bad, we managed to convince Ukraine to destroy their nuclear weapons and it worked out really well for them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit...
  • nyolfen 9y ago
    not to mention gaddafi
    • triplesec 9y ago
      If you think Gaddafi was a particularly bad guy, you need to watch Adam Curtis' excellent documentary 'Hypernormalisation', still available on the BBC iplayer, and probably elsewhere too
    • hangonhn 9y ago
      Nuclear weapons wouldn't have help Gaddafi anyways. He didn't have a working weapon nor a reliable way to delivering it. Also, what was he going to do with one? Threaten the US with one if the internal rebellions don't stop? Threaten to nuke his own people? There's an illusion of the utility of nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons might be OK if you want to destroy masses of conventional armies or destroy the ability of an enemy fighting a heavily industrialized conventional form of war. Unless the destructive power of nukes fit into your overall strategy, it's better not to have them or waste the resources developing them (along with the risk of sanctions, etc.)
      • Xixi 9y ago
        Had Gaddafi developed a working nuclear bomb with the necessary delivery mechanism, would France/UK/US have launched a campaign that ultimately ended with his death? We will never know, only speculate, but North Korea is betting that the answer to this question is "no".
        • AnimalMuppet 9y ago
          On the other hand, the US didn't launch a campaign that ended in the NK ruler's death before they had nukes, either...
          • Xixi 9y ago
            Quite true. Though western countries didn't attack Gaddafi before he gave up nuke either. The speculation I've heard (on radio, so I cannot paste a link) is that NK analysis is roughly: NK's regime is safe as long as China sees it as useful (probably using NK as some sort of buffer state against US), but sooner or later that support will end. Then only nuclear weapons will ensure NK's regime survival. It's rational, though again just speculation. The contradiction, or maybe unintended side effect, is that the developing of nuclear weapons itself is causing China to rethink its support of NK regime...
            • hangonhn 9y ago
  • batter 9y ago
    It worked so 'well' that it lost part of it's territory. From Budapest Memorandum Wiki: 'The memorandum included security assurances against threats or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan.' Now it will be a lesson for others: nukes are way more reliable than some piece of paper, which no one is gonna follow: http://www.dw.com/en/ukraines-forgotten-security-guarantee-the-budapest-memorandum/a-18111097 http://www.dw.com/en/ukraines-forgotten-security-guarantee-t...
    • hangonhn 9y ago
      "Now it will be a lesson for others: nukes are way more reliable than some piece of paper, which no one is gonna follow" Is it really though? Even if Ukraine had nukes, would it have threatened and actually have the will to use it over the lost of the Crimea? The conflict was low intensity warfare, which nukes are not particularly well suited for. I don't think nukes are the be-all-end-all weapons people think they are. There are huge consequences to using them, especially against another nuclear power.
      • googletazer 9y ago
        They couldn't launch them anyway, its the same as US nukes in Turkey.
      • greedy_buffer 9y ago
        > The conflict was low intensity warfare, which nukes are not particularly well suited for. Firstly "was" is not the right word, the war is ongoing: http://tass.com/world/965974 http://tass.com/world/965974 Secondly, imo the nature of the conflict is less important than whether a concentrated population of the adversary's citizens are within range of the weapon as far as determining the effectiveness of nuclear deterrent. > Even if Ukraine had nukes, would it have threatened and actually have the will to use it over the lost of the Crimea? Would those that made the decision to invade have accepted the risk of even the most minute possibility? No leader has done that so far.
        • 9y ago
  • countryslicker 9y ago
    It worked out even better for Libya.
  • InclinedPlane 9y ago
    Not sure if you're joking...
• valuearb 9y ago
  Have we been reckless? We've never had a serious accident. So maybe it's not luck, maybe there are a lot of controls that actually work well.
  • dboreham 9y ago
    In recent times, perhaps. But if you read the literature on the accidents and incidents that have occurred -- it is definitely due to luck.
    • fokinsean 9y ago
      This one was also extremely close. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1961_Goldsboro_B-52_crash https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1961_Goldsboro_B-52_crash 3 of the 4 arming mechanisms activated. I would say it's a combination of good luck and good controls :)
  • knappe 9y ago
    There are not a lot of controls that work really well. And a lot of the controls that do exist were fought for tooth and nail. That is the entire point of the book. :) For example, the locks in place at each Titan II facility all had exactly the same code (1111). And they were left unlocked. Regarding the accidents, here are a few examples: Thule Airbase crash: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Thule_Air_Base_B-52_crash https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Thule_Air_Base_B-52_crash Damascus incident? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_Damascus_Titan_missile_explosion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_Damascus_Titan_missile_ex... How about the two hydrogen bombs that were accidentally dropped from a B-52: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/20/usaf-atomic-bomb-north-carolina-1961 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/20/usaf-atomic-bo... Or what is probably the worst incident to date, the B-52 that caught fire and almost blew up with 75,000 people within the blast radius: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1991-08-13/news/9103280297_1_nuclear-weapons-grand-forks-plutonium http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1991-08-13/news/910328029... The list goes on and on. That is the reason why the book specifically called out that it was a miracle we haven't had any (known) detonations. Here is a list of the _known_ broken arrow events: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_nuclear_incident_terminology#Broken_Arrow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_nuclear... Keep in mind that the article we're discussing is about a 53 year old event that was _just_ revealed. There are more of them -- we just don't know about it, yet.
• tzs 9y ago
  > Further the book, at one point, talks about America's position on Russia and the attempts to keep them from getting "the bomb". It is exactly what has played out and will continue to play out with North Korea and Iran. History is repeating itself and we sure haven't learned from it. Is it actually similar, though? The US got the bomb in 1945. The Russians got theirs in 1949. Given the size of the Soviet Union, how far it is from the United States, the available spying and reconnaissance technology (no satellites, no stealth aircraft), and that the US was only four years out of World War II, I don't think there is any way the US could have made a creditable threat to use military force to stop the Russians. Also, China and Russia were still on good terms back then. China might not have stayed out of it if the US attacked their ally and neighbor. Compare to North Korea and Iran. In both cases the US can make a creditable military threat. From a purely military point of view, the US could easily wipe either (or both) of them out. Furthermore, neither has any powerful allies who want them to get nukes. With North Korea, their only powerful ally is China and I don't think China actually cares if North Korea gets destroyed as long as (1) it doesn't send a lot of refugees across the Chinese border, and (2) whatever replaces it continues to function as a buffer zone between them and South Korea because they do not want a US ally right on their border.
  • scrumper 9y ago
    That’s not quite an accurate read though, at least as far as NK. The US can’t really make a credible military threat because of the north’s proximity to the south, an important US ally and a country all but guaranteed to be mortally wounded in the event of north/USA hostilities.
    • marcoperaza 9y ago
      Sure we can. We have the capability to totally annihilate as much of North Korea as we need in order to prevent a counter attack. The question is if we are willing to do it, and kill millions of North Korean civilians. Trump is sure trying to convince the North Koreans that he is.
      • kbenson 9y ago
• gedy 9y ago
  > We've been reckless I worked around nuclear weapon systems and TBH came away with the opposite impression. I grew up terrified of the military and panic mongering about of "THE BOMBS!" from family, media, etc. But after this, I ironically came away feeling much safer seeing how professional and serious people took their jobs.
  • knappe 9y ago
    I'd be curious what your takeaway is from the book. At one point one of the regulators in the Safety Commission stopped receiving reports about accidents because the Air Force knew that this would be used as ammunition to fix the Titan II safety issues that had been in place for decades.
  • forapurpose 9y ago
    > I grew up terrified of the military and panic mongering about of "THE BOMBS!" It's probably not intended that way, but the above is a bit of a strawman. There are many serious reasons to be concerned. For example, a few years ago it was discovered that the Air Force units operating the missiles had very low morale, there was widespread cheating on qualification exams, significant disregard for safety regulations, and a problem with drug use. Also, the general in charge had a drinking problem so bad that he went on a binge in Moscow. Before that, it was discovered that the Air Force lost track of several nuclear weapons. The Secretary of Defense at the time, Bob Gates, fired multiple Air Force leaders. Outside the missile field, maybe 10 years ago peaceful civilian protestors penetrated a complex storing highly enriched uranium or plutonium (weapons-grade materials, IIRC), and spent something like 20 minutes adjacent to the building containing the materials before security discovered them. IMHO, with something this dangerous, the greatest threat is complacence and trust. We are dealing with human beings who we are requiring to be vigilant over a period of generations - something people are very poor at for even a short time. Trust, but verify said Reagan of the Soviet Union, and that applies to our side too.
  • agumonkey 9y ago
    Some nuclear plant worker told the same on reddit. We're all very concerned about nuclear plant since Fukushima and we all saw mistakes. But the guy basically said he wouldn't work in any other place considering how well it was done and operated.
• baby 9y ago
  This is probably what will happen with terrorist attacks. There is no way they will stop now that medias love to talk about them, and there is no way they will decrease. We'll just grow tired of them.
• bborud 9y ago
  The problem is not that we are blasé about nuclear weapons. For the most part we are completely ignorant about them. No, the problem is that we assume that we wouldn’t put clowns in charge of something this dangerous. So when we put clowns in charge of nuclear weapons and they inevitably fuck up (and not just a bit), we either refuse to believe it is even possible or we assume it is a rare accident.
  • dboreham 9y ago
    If you read the literature, there were plenty of people in the industry who were well aware of these problems and worked tirelessly to fix them (making them clown-proof), since around 1960. The military brass actively worked to thwart their efforts.
    • bborud 9y ago
      I was referring to the general public, as (mis)informed by the media. But also the general attitude the public tends to have about whether or not people in important positions are competent.
• FabHK 9y ago
  > it is a miracle we haven't had a serious accident Or maybe it's evidence for the many-worlds-interpretation of quantum mechanics... we're in one of the few universes where we didn't blow ourselves up.
• j_s 9y ago
  This actually makes a great search tag: https://hn.algolia.com/?query=B00C5R7F8G&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?query=B00C5R7F8G&type=comment