11 ms·
The stability implications of the US nukes' burst-height compensating super-fuze
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 9y agoTLDR: smarter targeting allows the same explosive power to be more effective. This general principle has been known for a very long time. These are the same people who put out the totally useless "Doomsday clock" and like the "Doomsday clock" are just trying to stir up fear.
- fahd777 9y agoFear can be a very useful thing to avoid something as catastrophic as nuclear war.
- vkou 9y agoI rightly hope that everyone is scared shitless about the possibility of any war - let alone nuclear war.
- cryptonector 9y agoBut not so scared that a larger war results from unwillingness to fight a smaller war. We saw that movie in the 30s.
- vkou 9y agoWe've also seen how it has turned out in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Libya. Hundreds of thousands of people dead, for nothing. But as long as it's other people dying, we're totally fine with that.
- cryptonector 9y agoStrawman. None of those involved genocidal maniacs (unless you include Cambodia, where the U.S. did not intervene) nor plain old tin pot dictators bent on world domination.
- tropo 9y agoThe other choice is to be equally effective, but with less explosive power. It's an effort to be environmentally friendly.
- ISL 9y agoThe Bulletin of Atomic Scientists exists primarily to encourage awareness. The Doomsday Clock is perhaps imperfect, but it keeps the conversation going, something essential. I want to live in a world where instantaneous human-caused planetary disasters cannot happen.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago> I want to live in a world where instantaneous human-caused planetary disasters cannot happen. That may very well stay in the past (until the first such disaster) - the whole point of technology is to have ever finer control over ever more powerful things. Two big subsets of that are ever-increasing energy demands (energy = destructive power), and self-replication (aka. biotechnology).
- rmcpherson 9y agoThis general problem discussed in this article, a technological change affecting the perceived nuclear arsenal balance, is a reminder of the existential peril of nuclear weapons that we have seemingly forgotten since the fall of the Soviet Union. In some ways this peril has never been greater than it is today with unpredictable leaders of nuclear powers and ever-decreasing barriers to entry for nuclear weapons (e.g. North Korea). As Einstein said in 1955, when the existential threat was both new and real, “You may reasonably expect a man to walk a tightrope safely for ten minutes; it would be unreasonable to do so without accident for two hundred years.” We are complacent at our species’ peril. How many intelligent civilizations in the universe have ended shortly after the dawning of their nuclear age? That’s one possible explanation for the Fermi Paradox. Thus far, humans have been unable to resist use of a technology to gain power and the abstention from use of nuclear power seems only as strong as the current world power structure, which will inevitably fail. There are no easy solutions to this problem but it’s one we must solve to survive. Perhaps we even need to change ourselves biologically, as a species. To engineer ourselves off the paleolithic savannah into one fit to survive in the modern world of nuclear powers and interconnection.
- Retric 9y agoNuclear weapons are not currently a threat to the existence of the human species. Modern civilization might be at risk, but there are a lot of people spread across vast stretches of land and not enough nukes to kill them all. Granted they make it vastly easier to kill everyone in a city or even a small country, but people have done similar things for the last 10,000+ years.
- nerpderp83 9y agoA nuclear winter might be arguably better for the long term survival of the human species than an uncontrolled thermal runaway from global warming. Previous ELEs either ejected seeds-of-life into LEO or were Ice Ages, not hot ages. The oncoming arctic methane positive-feedback loop looks "interesting".
- adrianN 9y ago
- trdtaylor1 9y agoThis was why I was assuming the Russians brought back the nuclear torpedo. Not needing the B part of a ICBM greatly decreases fuel and thus size requirement.
- greedo 9y agoActually, a drone of the size of Status-6 will need a huge amount of fuel. It's easier to travel through the air than through water. Unless the Russians plan on deploying it from ships right off shore, it'll need very long range.
- thatcherc 9y agoStatus-6 is supposedly nuclear powered, so its range is effectively unlimited. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status-6_Oceanic_Multipurpose_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status-6_Oceanic_Multipurpose_...
- rdtsc 9y ago> In particular, Russia is now in the process of testing a 40-ton nuclear-powered underwater unmanned vehicle (UUV) that could robotically deliver, across thousands of kilometers, a 100-megaton nuclear warhead against the coastal cities and ports of the United States. Interesting. What kind of damage would that do. Maybe a few of those blowing up at the same time would cause a tsunami wave? It sounds like something out of Dr. Strangelove. Water is also good at dampening explosions, I'd think. Aha, there is XKCD for this already: https://what-if.xkcd.com/15 https://what-if.xkcd.com/15 . It turns out the wave created by one won't be like a tsunami wave as it will break too quickly. So maybe they'd need to stagger a few devices in a row. Linked from there is a very thorough paper "Evaluation of Various Theoretical Models For Underwater Explosion" http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/737271.pdf http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/737271.pdf
- jadedhacker 9y agoI did some research on Operation Crossroads a while back. I'm not sure what the blast effect damage would be, but it would cause radioactive water to wash over the town. Several warships in the exercise were scrapped because they could not be cleaned as certain isotopes stuck to the metal. EDIT: Of course, how much radiation exposure you're willing to tolerate is a risk assessment call, but it seems pretty unfair to the civilian population to take any significant increased radiological risk. EDIT2: 100MT is the design yield of the Tsar bomba, the actual detonated yield was 50MT b/c the plane dropping it would not have been able to escape at the design yield. This is a very very big bomb if that capability were actually used. I assume smaller bombs would also be able to be used as well.
- mcguire 9y ago100M ton Tsar Bomba, surface explosion just outside the Golden Gate bridge. https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/?&kt=100000&lat=37.8139965&lng=-122.4880801&airburst=0&hob_ft=0&casualties=1&fallout=1&ff=52&psi=20,5,1&zm=9 https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/?&kt=100000&lat=37.813996...
- jadedhacker 9y agoI wonder at what depth a nuclear sub would detonate. It does seem conceivable that it might surface. The fallout model relies on the fireball touching land, so the part that is over water would have less impact. However, with a bomb that size, the water might consist of only a fraction of the total area.
- jadedhacker 9y agoNoam Chomsky has been talking about this for a while. He gave a talk at Harvard* that discussed the threat of terminal war and mentioned this in his talk. Some might claim that 3x stronger hard-kill power is a stronger deterrent and can allow us to retire the land based ICBMs. It can also ratchet up tensions, and I'm going to lol all the way to the bank if the military gives up a huge source of funding. Inter-branch competition has been that way since the inception of the nuclear program. Capabilities have been replicated wastefully at various points to keep people happy. https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4675156/noam-chomsky-requiem-american-dream-10-principles-concentration-wealth-power https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4675156/noam-chomsky-requiem-... EDIT: It was actually at the unitarian church outside of Harvard.
- ChuckMcM 9y agoI am not a nuclear policy wonk, so I apologize if this question is answered elsewhere. Much of the argument presented in this paper from last year is based on how destabilizing it is because Russia does not have an orbital launch detection capability. Since it would double the time they had to respond and requires no action banned or restricted by treaty, why would they not put satellites in orbit that could detect the IR signature of a missile launch? Why not strap it on to their constellation of GLONASS satellites? This seems like a much easier technology to develop and deploy and test (the US is launching rockets every month, it should see every one of those launches reliably). What am I missing here?
- cryptonector 9y agoFirst off, it may not be quite that simple. They may need detector tech that they lack. Secondly, development of these dead-hand weapons systems may be easier for them or more appealing for whatever reasons (perhaps cultural). But yes, you'd think it'd be better to double decision times than to deploy dead-hands. Also, the U.S. could easily share early warning satellite technology with Russia. This might be a lot easier if relations weren't already so frosty. I believe Obama's sanctions against Russia were unwise, and ratcheted up tensions unnecessarily. Moreover, Congress' subsequent affirmation of those sanctions and removal of the President's ability to remove them further ratcheted up tensions. And all of this over a very partisan domestic feud about supposed Russian interference in the 2016 election, in a country that regularly interferes in other countries' elections. Is this really worth it for Democrats? Is it really worth it for all those very many Republicans that voted for that silly bill (probably so they could head off Democrat claims of being in cahoots with Russia)?? Almost certainly not. But such is the degree of bitter, uncivil partisanship in the United States today. President Trump doesn't even have the ability to negotiate a thaw in relations given the current statutory situation -- a treaty could be used, sure, but there's no reason to think that the Senate would welcome it anymore than it was willing to let the President be able to reduce sanctions by himself (as would have been the usual case). My guess is it will take Republicans having a very good 2018, or failing that, a very good 2020, before tensions can decrease. Alternatively, Democrats would have to sweep in 2020 and somehow allow themselves to un-blame Russia for 2016, which just doesn't seem likely, not given their rhetoric so far.
- cornholio 9y agoI can't, for the life of me, understand why the major nuclear powers still cannot commit to full denuclearization. It's really one meeting away between Russia and US, they agree to take all nuclear weapons out of service by 2050 then strong arm every country in the world to participate. What plausible purpose do these weapons serve (except deterrence itself), fully knowing that using them will almost guarantee massive retaliation?
- vtange 9y agoAt this point, I imagine it's a "you first" issue. Trust is pretty darn scarce these days, how can you be sure the other side won't just annihilate you the moment they know you can't retaliate? That or be sure that not even one nuke is active or to take a page from guns, "80%" or nearly-active? Even if we do manage full denuclearization, it'd be pretty darn hard to keep it that way seeing as how we can't even stop North Korea from joining the club.
- cornholio 9y agoWho said anything about trust? It would certainly proceed in a lockstep process, with strict accountability and transparency, where the parties agree on a schedule to gradually dismantle all weapons and production infrastructure and supply detailed information at various checkpoints. You can't build a nuclear arsenal overnight. NK joined an exclusive club and now Kim is rewarded with a visit from Trump. In this version of the world, possessing nuclear weapons is a source of legitimacy for any country. In a non-nuclear world, actions to obtain them will prompt imediate preemptive conventional attacks. Russia, US and EU could agree to maintain minimal deterrence capability against rouge actors like NK, but insufficient for global war.
- stordoff 9y agoEven if you do establish a procedure, how do you guarantee that the reported number of weapons prior to dearmament is accurate (and thus matches the number of dismantled weapons), and that the other side didn't keep a stockpile in an off-the-books location? That brings us back to trust -- that the other side is legitimately engaging with the process and that the totality of weapons is known, rather than merely reducing their numbers (which would be no bad thing, but significantly different to total disarmament, particularly if only one side goes through with it)?
- CapitalistCartr 9y agoWe've been adding such improvements for as long as missiles have existed. Better nosecones, rearrange the interior furniture, new guidance software, etc. When the Cold War was still on, we made two-three foot shots (0) from Vandyland (1) per year. Each one was mined for research and used for tweaking. The two big changes were solid fuel boosters and multiple warheads. Everything else has been minor in comparison. 0 https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/amp9936/behind-the-scenes-at-a-rehearsal-for-armageddon-16355867/ https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/amp9936/behind-the... 1 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandenberg_Air_Force_Base https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandenberg_Air_Force_Base
- danielvf 9y agoHumanity as a whole is probably better off. A core strategy of US nuclear forces for the past sixty years has been to increase precision and to reduce warhead size. The biggest US warhead ever was in service in 1954 - a 15,000 kiloton bomb. Our biggest current bomb, designed in the 70's, is 1,200 kilotons, less than a tenth of what we've had before. Our latest ICBM warhead is only 300 - 475 kilotons. Also with the increased precision, the US has been reducing the number of warheads - we now have one third? the number of warheads we had in the 1960's. In fact, Russia has more declared nuclear weapons than the US. The increase accuracy is likely to save a lot of lives in the case of war.
- throwaway5752 9y ago"The increase accuracy is likely to save a lot of lives in the case of war." Unlikely. It's likely to kill about as many with better efficiency.
- credit_guy 9y agoNot really. The aim of these improvements, according to the article, is to more efficiently take out hardened military installations. The soldiers serving at those bases will die either way, but using fewer bombs means less collateral damage, and thus fewer civilian loses.
- MaxfordAndSons 9y agoYou're missing the forest for the trees. The accuracy to kilotonnage ratio of the warheads, as well as the absolute warhead count, is irrelevant. The US nuclear arsenal as a whole is 2-3x more effective, and thus 2-3x deadlier, because of the super-fuze. Also, even if the increased accuracy results in less civilian casualties during the first strike (debatable, as strategic population centers will still be targeted...with greater accuracy), the super-fuze is still likely increasing the overall probability of nuclear war. Thus I would hardly say it makes humanity as a whole better off.
- danielvf 9y ago
- John_KZ 9y agoVery informative article. Sheds more light into the emerging nuclear weapons race.
- walrus01 9y agoOne of the interesting things is that both the US and Russia gave up a significant number of warheads per missile through MIRV number reduction treaties. Submarine and lane based missiles on both sides that might have previously held 3 or 4 MIRVs now have a single re entry vehicle. But things like the status-6 are not covered by these treaties.
- ohiovr 9y agoHow many centurys do you expect to have civilization before someone that doesn't value life as much as you do does the unthinkable?
- superkuh 9y agoThis is compensated for by Russia's implementation of fractional orbital bombardment systems that bypass radar detection.
- adventured 9y agoNobody is actually worried about that supposed compensation. The biggest joke going, is the notion that any of these technology improvements matter once you start lobbing hundreds of nuclear weapons at each other. Bypass radar detection? Funny stuff. The US has never thought it could stop dozens, much less hundreds, of Russia missiles. Fractional orbital bombardment system? A waste of money that Russia doesn't have, as one of the poorest major nations on earth (with a GDP per capita below Grenada). Do you know why the US has spent so relatively little pushing nuclear weapons tech forward the last 40 years? Because it doesn't matter: just about everyone dies regardless. Russia has no missile shield, and the US has no missile shield that can stop a large volley of traditional missiles.
- larkeith 9y ago> boosting the overall killing power of existing US ballistic missile forces by a factor of roughly three The measure by which the authors conclude a tripling in killing power seems to be intentionally misleading: > This 86 percent probability is very close to what could be achieved using three warheads with conventional fuzes to attack the same target. To put it differently: 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. While obtaining the same probability of destroying any given target requires one third as many warheads, the more relevant statistic seems to me to be expected number of warheads required per target, which is decreased by less than half; Total targets destroyed per missile launched, which seems a more accurate descriptor of "killing power", is increased by a factor of about 1.7 - still notable, but very much not the tripling claimed.