4 ms·

Couple of questions for anyone who knows about this kind of hardware. (1) Is the nuclear arms "race" still on? Ie, Is the US still playing a game of my offence

Couple of questions for anyone who knows about this kind of hardware. (1) Is the nuclear arms "race" still on? Ie, Is the US still playing a game of my offence/defence is better than yours with The States? (2) does this count as a new bar or milestone or somesuch, and if so when was the last "milestone." Ie, something that changes the strategic dynamic between major powers in a somewhat meaningful way.

pvg 9y ago
1) No. Both principal sides have a fraction of the warheads they had at the end of the cold war. 2) It's hard to tell. The standoffs have been (fortunately) much talkier. Periodically, the US makes noises about nuclear arsenal modernization, smaller tactical nukes, 'theater missile defense' etc. Similarly, the Russians announce unstoppable super-missiles. There's always the risk these moves could lead to a full-blown nuclear weapons arms race.
- eesmith 9y ago
  1) Absolutely yes. Here's a quote from the New York Times from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/04/us/politics/trump-nuclear-russia.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=&stream=top-stories https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/04/us/politics/trump-nuclear... : > Yet when President Trump called on Congress to “modernize and rebuild our nuclear arsenal” in his State of the Union address last week, he did not mention his administration’s rationale: that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia has accelerated a dangerous game that the United States must match, even if the price tag soars above $1.2 trillion. That is the latest estimate from the Congressional Budget Office, one that many experts think is low by a half-trillion dollars. The CBO report is at https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/115th-congress-2017-2018/reports/53211-nuclearforces.pdf https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/115th-congress-2017-2018/re... . Sure, the US has fewer warheads. It's still something like 5,000 warheads which is far more than is needed for any sort of retaliatory strike. It is what's needed if you want a first-strike capability to take out all of Russia's hardened launch sites. "Makes noises"? Aren't we actually doing that, and have been doing that, for decades? The most recent is super-fuze. Quoting https://fas.org/blogs/security/2017/03/super-fuze/ https://fas.org/blogs/security/2017/03/super-fuze/ : > Under the cover of an otherwise legitimate life-extension of the W76 warhead, the Navy has quietly added a new super-fuze to the warhead that dramatically increases the ability of the Navy to destroy hard targets in Russia and other adversaries. ... > “As a consequence, the US submarine force today is much more capable than it was previously against hardened targets such as Russian ICBM silos. A decade ago, only about 20 percent of US submarine warheads had hard-target kill capability; today they all do.” ... > In the article we conclude that the SSBN force, rather than simply being a stable retaliatory capability, with the new super-fuze increasingly will be seen as a front-line, first-strike weapon that is likely to further fuel trigger-happy, worst-case planning in other nuclear-armed states. There are three factors to consider with "unstoppable super-missiles": 1) The US pulled out of the ABM treaty. This was predicted to destabilize things, because it implies the US might want first-strike capability, with the ability to prevent a retaliatory response. Since the US upgrades mean we can take out hardened targets, that means Russia will have to switch to launch-on-warning rather than launch-on-impact. 2) There has always been a strong argument against ABM systems because they are extremely expensive, they don't work well, and the counter-measures are cheap. 3) The "unstoppable super-missiles" are what you must have if you believe that a retaliatory second strike is a deterrent against a US first-strike attack. We have only to look at history to see how high-level people in the US have wanted to use nuclear weapons. The current president appears to be one of those. On the flip side, consider the nuclear drone torpedo. This cannot be used as a first-strike attack because it can only destroy coastal cities. It cannot take out the US nuclear triad. It therefore more effective for retaliation, by the threat of destroying millions of Americans should the US decided to nuke Russia.
  - pvg 9y ago
    This is more less the same thing I said, with lots and lots of details. Similar things were taking place during the Bush administration. There is a lot of realignment, a lot of posturing, it is certainly a risk but it very much does not amount to a 'nuclear arms race'. If that's a nuclear arms race, the nuclear arms race never stopped. That's not an entirely unreasonable position but if you take that position, for you, the mere existence of a nuclear arsenal of any sort on either side constitutes a perpetual 'nuclear arms race'.
    - eesmith 9y ago
      I disagree. I think I am saying something quite different. I think the current arms race started in 2002 when the US pulled out of the ABM, followed by the "upgrades" which started under Obama. (The research for those upgrades of course started long before - it's the deployment I'm interested in.) I think adding super-fuze to US nuclear weapons - "In the case of the 100-kt Trident II warhead, the super fuze triples the killing power of the nuclear force it has been applied to. https://thebulletin.org/how-us-nuclear-force-modernization-undermining-strategic-stability-burst-height-compensating-super10578 https://thebulletin.org/how-us-nuclear-force-modernization-u... - is an example of not just of the "mere existence of a nuclear arsenal", but a determined effort to tilt the balance very much in favor of the US. Why did we need that upgrade? I think the US has developed its systems far enough in that direction that Russia is now forced to spend money to keep up, as otherwise MAD is no longer effective. And that's why I call it an re-uptake of the arms race. What would you expect to see if there were a new nuclear arms race?
      - pvg 9y ago
        Why did we need that upgrade? There are about a zillion reasons you can come up with for that, to match the entire spectrum of political outlooks and levels of cynicism, none of which have to include 'to start a new nuclear arms race'. What would you expect to see if there were a new nuclear arms race? Well, for one thing, I'd expect the race to include at least two parties. If Russia truly believed something on the US side is actually putting the global strategic nuclear balance in question, I imagine their response would be more robust than running a missile-naming competition on the internet. The reporting on these issues always stresses the risk of starting a new nuclear arms race - the NYT piece you linked to does, as has much of what has been written over the last 15-odd years at least. The risk is surely real but this does imply that we have not, in fact, been in a nuclear arms race. So far.
varren 9y ago
1) yes, the race is still on. I don't want to go deep into the politics and talk about who triggered what, but the breakpoint was the USA withdrawal from Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty(1972-2001)[1] and development of Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System(2002)[2] and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense(2008)[3] and some other projects in that field. It can look like not a big deal, but it is actually a crucial step to escalation, because if you don't feel safe enough (without anti-missile system good enough to protect you) you will never strike first. But if you have such a system what stops you from using nuclear weapons? At least that was the main idea behind the first ABM Treaty (1972). Back in the days USSR had huge progress in that field, and now USA can easily create superior systems in a couple of years. While China and Russia don't have the same resources, the only thing they can do is to improve nuclear weapons(because it is cheaper). And after all SALT I (1969–1972), the ABM Treaty (1972), SALT II (1972–1979) are all part of the same deal. So yes, we can say that the world is changing and old system of mutual nuclear disarmament is not working anymore. And it can't actually work in the world where new nuclear power emerge every 10 years or so... 2) don't think so. Some leader bragging about some 'invincible' weapon before the elections is not a big deal. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Ballistic_Missile_Treaty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Ballistic_Missile_Treaty [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_Ballistic_Missile_Defense_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_Ballistic_Missile_Defens... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_High_Altitude_Area_Defense https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_High_Altitude_Area_De...
- AnimalMuppet 9y ago
  The US had to do something like this because of North Korea. We trust deterrence with Russia much more than we do with North Korea. I don't thing ABM defenses really change things. Russia can throw 2000 warheads at us. Can we stop them all? No way. But would we have a chance at stopping one North Korean nuke? Yes. So I think this is only destablilizing if Russia and China decide that it is. If Russia is looking realistically at the situation, there is exactly zero chance that the US will willingly take the amount of damage that Russia could cause, even with ABM defenses reducing the damage.
  - varren 9y ago
dragonwriter 9y ago
> Is the nuclear arms "race" still on? Yes, though it's a capabilities race and not a numbers race, mostly. Geopolitical conflict with Russia restarted very quickly after a brief pause at the end of the Cold War, and an integral part of that conflict is jockeying for a dominant position should it come to war (mostly, because being perceived as having such a position is a powerful tool in that conflict without escalation to war.)
- pvg 9y ago
  Evolution of military capabilities an arms race does not make. Otherwise pretty much everyone is in an arms race with everyone else, making the term pointless.

pvg 9y ago

1) No. Both principal sides have a fraction of the warheads they had at the end of the cold war. 2) It's hard to tell. The standoffs have been (fortunately) much talkier. Periodically, the US makes noises about nuclear arsenal modernization, smaller tactical nukes, 'theater missile defense' etc. Similarly, the Russians announce unstoppable super-missiles. There's always the risk these moves could lead to a full-blown nuclear weapons arms race.

eesmith 9y ago
1) Absolutely yes. Here's a quote from the New York Times from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/04/us/politics/trump-nuclear-russia.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=&stream=top-stories https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/04/us/politics/trump-nuclear... : > Yet when President Trump called on Congress to “modernize and rebuild our nuclear arsenal” in his State of the Union address last week, he did not mention his administration’s rationale: that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia has accelerated a dangerous game that the United States must match, even if the price tag soars above $1.2 trillion. That is the latest estimate from the Congressional Budget Office, one that many experts think is low by a half-trillion dollars. The CBO report is at https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/115th-congress-2017-2018/reports/53211-nuclearforces.pdf https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/115th-congress-2017-2018/re... . Sure, the US has fewer warheads. It's still something like 5,000 warheads which is far more than is needed for any sort of retaliatory strike. It is what's needed if you want a first-strike capability to take out all of Russia's hardened launch sites. "Makes noises"? Aren't we actually doing that, and have been doing that, for decades? The most recent is super-fuze. Quoting https://fas.org/blogs/security/2017/03/super-fuze/ https://fas.org/blogs/security/2017/03/super-fuze/ : > Under the cover of an otherwise legitimate life-extension of the W76 warhead, the Navy has quietly added a new super-fuze to the warhead that dramatically increases the ability of the Navy to destroy hard targets in Russia and other adversaries. ... > “As a consequence, the US submarine force today is much more capable than it was previously against hardened targets such as Russian ICBM silos. A decade ago, only about 20 percent of US submarine warheads had hard-target kill capability; today they all do.” ... > In the article we conclude that the SSBN force, rather than simply being a stable retaliatory capability, with the new super-fuze increasingly will be seen as a front-line, first-strike weapon that is likely to further fuel trigger-happy, worst-case planning in other nuclear-armed states. There are three factors to consider with "unstoppable super-missiles": 1) The US pulled out of the ABM treaty. This was predicted to destabilize things, because it implies the US might want first-strike capability, with the ability to prevent a retaliatory response. Since the US upgrades mean we can take out hardened targets, that means Russia will have to switch to launch-on-warning rather than launch-on-impact. 2) There has always been a strong argument against ABM systems because they are extremely expensive, they don't work well, and the counter-measures are cheap. 3) The "unstoppable super-missiles" are what you must have if you believe that a retaliatory second strike is a deterrent against a US first-strike attack. We have only to look at history to see how high-level people in the US have wanted to use nuclear weapons. The current president appears to be one of those. On the flip side, consider the nuclear drone torpedo. This cannot be used as a first-strike attack because it can only destroy coastal cities. It cannot take out the US nuclear triad. It therefore more effective for retaliation, by the threat of destroying millions of Americans should the US decided to nuke Russia.
- pvg 9y ago
  This is more less the same thing I said, with lots and lots of details. Similar things were taking place during the Bush administration. There is a lot of realignment, a lot of posturing, it is certainly a risk but it very much does not amount to a 'nuclear arms race'. If that's a nuclear arms race, the nuclear arms race never stopped. That's not an entirely unreasonable position but if you take that position, for you, the mere existence of a nuclear arsenal of any sort on either side constitutes a perpetual 'nuclear arms race'.
  - eesmith 9y ago
    I disagree. I think I am saying something quite different. I think the current arms race started in 2002 when the US pulled out of the ABM, followed by the "upgrades" which started under Obama. (The research for those upgrades of course started long before - it's the deployment I'm interested in.) I think adding super-fuze to US nuclear weapons - "In the case of the 100-kt Trident II warhead, the super fuze triples the killing power of the nuclear force it has been applied to. https://thebulletin.org/how-us-nuclear-force-modernization-undermining-strategic-stability-burst-height-compensating-super10578 https://thebulletin.org/how-us-nuclear-force-modernization-u... - is an example of not just of the "mere existence of a nuclear arsenal", but a determined effort to tilt the balance very much in favor of the US. Why did we need that upgrade? I think the US has developed its systems far enough in that direction that Russia is now forced to spend money to keep up, as otherwise MAD is no longer effective. And that's why I call it an re-uptake of the arms race. What would you expect to see if there were a new nuclear arms race?
    - pvg 9y ago
      Why did we need that upgrade? There are about a zillion reasons you can come up with for that, to match the entire spectrum of political outlooks and levels of cynicism, none of which have to include 'to start a new nuclear arms race'. What would you expect to see if there were a new nuclear arms race? Well, for one thing, I'd expect the race to include at least two parties. If Russia truly believed something on the US side is actually putting the global strategic nuclear balance in question, I imagine their response would be more robust than running a missile-naming competition on the internet. The reporting on these issues always stresses the risk of starting a new nuclear arms race - the NYT piece you linked to does, as has much of what has been written over the last 15-odd years at least. The risk is surely real but this does imply that we have not, in fact, been in a nuclear arms race. So far.

varren 9y ago

1) yes, the race is still on. I don't want to go deep into the politics and talk about who triggered what, but the breakpoint was the USA withdrawal from Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty(1972-2001)[1] and development of Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System(2002)[2] and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense(2008)[3] and some other projects in that field. It can look like not a big deal, but it is actually a crucial step to escalation, because if you don't feel safe enough (without anti-missile system good enough to protect you) you will never strike first. But if you have such a system what stops you from using nuclear weapons? At least that was the main idea behind the first ABM Treaty (1972). Back in the days USSR had huge progress in that field, and now USA can easily create superior systems in a couple of years. While China and Russia don't have the same resources, the only thing they can do is to improve nuclear weapons(because it is cheaper). And after all SALT I (1969–1972), the ABM Treaty (1972), SALT II (1972–1979) are all part of the same deal. So yes, we can say that the world is changing and old system of mutual nuclear disarmament is not working anymore. And it can't actually work in the world where new nuclear power emerge every 10 years or so... 2) don't think so. Some leader bragging about some 'invincible' weapon before the elections is not a big deal. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Ballistic_Missile_Treaty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Ballistic_Missile_Treaty [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_Ballistic_Missile_Defense_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_Ballistic_Missile_Defens... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_High_Altitude_Area_Defense https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_High_Altitude_Area_De...

AnimalMuppet 9y ago
The US had to do something like this because of North Korea. We trust deterrence with Russia much more than we do with North Korea. I don't thing ABM defenses really change things. Russia can throw 2000 warheads at us. Can we stop them all? No way. But would we have a chance at stopping one North Korean nuke? Yes. So I think this is only destablilizing if Russia and China decide that it is. If Russia is looking realistically at the situation, there is exactly zero chance that the US will willingly take the amount of damage that Russia could cause, even with ABM defenses reducing the damage.
- varren 9y ago

dragonwriter 9y ago

> Is the nuclear arms "race" still on? Yes, though it's a capabilities race and not a numbers race, mostly. Geopolitical conflict with Russia restarted very quickly after a brief pause at the end of the Cold War, and an integral part of that conflict is jockeying for a dominant position should it come to war (mostly, because being perceived as having such a position is a powerful tool in that conflict without escalation to war.)

pvg 9y ago
Evolution of military capabilities an arms race does not make. Otherwise pretty much everyone is in an arms race with everyone else, making the term pointless.