10 ms·

Good lord I’ve heard before about how there was a close superpower conflict in 1973. This is very alarming, and it could still happen between the US and Russia

Good lord I’ve heard before about how there was a close superpower conflict in 1973. This is very alarming, and it could still happen between the US and Russia or China. We’re really playing with Fire if you look at the number of close calls there have been with nuclear weapons. The only sane way we can carry on guaranteeing a decent existence for mankind is to work towards a world free of nuclear weapons. https://www.upi.com/Yom-Kippur-Israels-1973-nuclear-alert/64941032228992/ https://www.upi.com/Yom-Kippur-Israels-1973-nuclear-alert/64... https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/oct/15/cuban-missile-crisis-russian-roulette https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/oct/15/cuban-...

WrtCdEvrydy 8y ago
We actually have slowly begun having less and less nuclear weapons, you just don't hear about it https://fas.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Stockpile-History.jpg https://fas.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Stockpile-History...
- Synaesthesia 8y ago
  It’s still plenty enough to destroy the world. We’re still spending money to modernize nuclear weapons, and now Russia and China are too, a logical response.
- avar 8y ago
  This is true, but once you start looking into it is highly misleading. A huge (and maybe only) reason for this is advances in targeting systems. In the 70s and 80s targeting systems were much worse, so you might expect to send tens of nukes to destroy a single reinforced bunker, since many would miss by hundreds of meters to kilometers. So often you needed tens of nukes for a single strategic target. Nowadays targeting systems are so good and launch / reentry vehicles so reliable that a single nuke can hit exactly in the right x-y coordinate and in the exact z coordinate sweetspot to destroy that bunker. So you don't need as many. So the number of nukes has gone down, but the destructive power is quite similar, although I suppose in the event of an all-out war we'll have less fallout.
  - Retric 8y ago
    Fallout is really bad. Radiation goes from a high lifetime cancer risk to LD 50/50 over a narrow (in exponential terms) band so twice the fallout can quickly kill a lot more people. Nukes really don't destroy that much land directly, the difference with nuclear war over regular ones is mostly just the fallout. The people intuitively scale up Hiroshima and say it's 1,000x as strong so it destroys 1,000x the area. But, it's non linear the giant hot ball of gas quickly gains altitude. Sure, the center get's more energy but it was destroyed anyway. Also, the atmosphere cuts radiation exponentially with distance. So, if you block 1/2 the radiation at X, then you get 1/4 at 2x and 1/8th at 3x. Thus doubling only increases the lethal radius by X rather than say 5x which is the original lethal radius. (Note it's more complex as radius also reduces the received dose directly, and radiation turns into heat etc.) PS: You can estimate direct damage as ~10000 * ~100 square miles (most nukes are sub 1MT) ~= 1 million square miles. But, the earth has 57 million square miles of land. So ~2% of total land though much of this would be over water as many cities are coastal. So, if you could ignore fallout and each nuke was targeting something else most land would still be untouched.
  - wongarsu 8y ago
    The ideal outcome of a nuclear war would be an exchange that destroys all military installations of all sides with the smallest nessesary nukes and no civilian casulties. In that sense, increased targeting capabilities are great. Now we just need to work on not targeting civilians, not destroying the electrical grid, minimizing fallout etc.
    - kosievdmerwe 8y ago
      That defeats the purpose of MAD and makes the use of nuclear weapons more likely. If the response to a nuclear attack is devastating then there is less chance that one will attack in the first place. I firmly believe nukes are the reason we haven't had world war 3 yet. If no nukes existed the USA and the USSR would have gone at it in the 60s/70s.
      - quacked 8y ago
- sehugg 8y ago
  Meanwhile, we're building tactical nukes again, and signaling that we're willing to use them (and that somehow we can avoid further escalation): https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2018/07/24/tactical-nuclear-weapon-launches-into-development-with-pentagon-policy-bill/ https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2018/07/24/tactical-nuc...
  - profalseidol 8y ago
    Cause Russian meddling.
- hnzix 8y ago
  > having less and less nuclear weapons Disarmament didn't work out so well for Ukraine...
  - macintux 8y ago
    I'm skeptical it would have been a realistic deterrent in this case. If Russia decides it's time to annex the entire country, on the other hand...
    - jacobush 8y ago
      Seriously? Even a remote possibility of having Moscow flattened would have deterred an attack. Remember, it's the leaders who decide to nuke, there's no referendum of the people. North Korea have tiny, impotent toy nukes and everyone around them are very careful.
      - macintux 8y ago
        The problem was it wasn't an "attack" in the classic "hey we're at war" sense. Russia is pretty good at fostering conflict on its borders without being blatant enough to make nuclear retaliation palatable.
        jacobush 8y ago
        The dynamics change when you have nukes to back your regular forces up. The Ukraine could have thrown 100% of their conventional forces at the invasion, if they would have had a nuclear threat getting their backs. As it stood, they could not mobilise because that would a) have left their flanks open because their conventional forces were in such a sad shape and b) going all in with conventional forces would have been an invitation to Russia to counter and crush them - think Russian tanks in Kiev. And it could be spun as a "legal war" and be over until the rest of the world knew how to react. If on the other hand, you at all times have a bunch of ICBMs in your back pocket, Russian blitz krieg is not in the cards.
        8y ago
- Symmetry 8y ago
  We really need to cut the stockpile to 300 deployed nukes and institute a no first use policy. That level of deterrence is enough to enough to make a nuclear attack madness but drastically reduce the likelihood of a civilization or species ending nuclear winter should they be used. This is, I think, an achievable goal though obviously larger reductions would be better.
- RachelF 8y ago
  The nuclear option actually limited the war. The Syrians were scared of going past the Jordan river, because of Israeli nuclear threats to Damascus. "On the night of 8 October 1973, Israeli PM Meir authorized the assembly of thirteen 20 kiloton tactical nuclear weapons for Jericho missiles at Sdot Micha Airbase and McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II aircraft at Tel Nof Airbase." https://fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/farr.htm https://fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/farr.htm
- profalseidol 8y ago
  Oh I heard about the US backing off Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Treaties. And it's probably because of Russian hackers.
dhimes 8y ago
We have to take God out of the equation. It's just impossible to deal with people when they are doing it for $Deity.
- reitanqild 8y ago
  The history of China, France, Soviet and others tells us that it is impossible to deal with people even after trying honestly to remove God from the equation.
- dougmwne 8y ago
  I'm downvoting because your reply didn't seem to contribute to the discussion constructively. I'm replying because I really don't see how any mainstream religion in any way would advocate thermonuclear war or MAD, and in fact think religions would generally abhor it. Israel being close to using nuclear weapons seems to be entirely a secular matter driven by the nature of nation states, game-theory, and self-preservation. Religion in this case is just a prop and could be seamlessly exchanged with appeals to history, culture, race, or patriotism.
  - dhimes 8y ago
    This is probably not the place for a lengthy argument, but I'll simply note that "mainstream" religion is kind of a straw-man, and most adherents fall into one-or-another sect. I was in a church in the U.S. South many years ago, a church that is definitely mainstream there. The preacher that evening actively advocated killing Satan worshippers. Not figuratively, but literally killing them. Nobody in the congregation disagreed. "I don't want them around. Do you?" I started thinking hard about the whole God thing after that. Religion is a very powerful tool that I believe is exploited for control. I'm sorry if I offended you. But I totally stand by my claim.
    - jki275 8y ago
      That's a very abnormal position for any member of any church in the US to take. I've been in many different ones and never heard anything like it.
adventured 8y ago
It's impossible to build a world free of nuclear weapons. A lot more countries will have them in the future, not fewer. North Korea, the poorest country on earth, has demonstrated how it can be done by anyone. Before that Pakistan and India demonstrated how easily it can be done with minimal consequences. Poor and small nations will always be at an extreme disadvantage when it comes to conventional military conflict. Taiwan would love nothing more than to have a 100 nuke stockpile right now, it's the only way they don't get invaded and annexed by China against their will. There is nothing that can stop China as things are today, the US isn't going to commit suicide to save them from annexation. Those nuclear weapons are the ultimate deterrence when facing off with an overwhelming opponent, another thing North Korea correctly figured out. There's no scenario where countries like Pakistan or North Korea don't pursue nuclear weapons to compensate for their weakness or specific context. To say nothing of that pursuit on the basis of conquering rivals or ensuring dictatorships or kingdoms. Iran is guaranteed to acquire nukes in the near future, both for their desire to be able to stand-off with Israel on an equal footing and to deter the US. Iran can't fight with the US in a conventional manner at all, the US can disable their entire economy and take down their air force and navy without ever invading. There's one tangible solution from their point of view. If you're Vietnam, and China becomes a monster bent on conquering Asia, with a $40 trillion economy and an unlimited supply of soldiers, how do you stop them from taking your country? There's one answer. Until there are no very powerful military nations, and all nations have similar numbers of soldiers, budgets and hardware, nuclear weapons will remain desirable for defensive purposes if nothing else.
- crdoconnor 8y ago
  >North Korea, the poorest country on earth, has demonstrated how it can be done by anyone. North Korea is not even close to being as poor as the reputation bestowed upon it by the US establishment. If it were, space rockets and nukes would simply have been out of the question (as they were in the 90s). You don't tend to find the best rocket scientists living in mud huts. It's still hardly a rich country but industrially they're surprisingly profligate and while their famous famine weighs heavily upon them (esp. in the form of stunted heights) it was 25 years ago. About the only thing there is still a massive, visceral shortage of is oil (because embargoes).
mnm1 8y ago
You can't guarantee a decent existence, nuclear weapons or not. We certainly didn't have one before nuclear weapons existed. It seems to me the peace we have obtained in the last seventy years or so throughout a lot of the world is due to nuclear weapons, not despite them. It's almost certain the US and USSR would have fought a war if it weren't for their presence. Same with a lot of other countries. Seems to me like there is no going back anyway so we should be thankful for the relative peace that exists now likely due to their presence.
- mikeash 8y ago
  I completely agree that nuclear weapons are the major reason there hasn't been a world war since 1945. The world has been remarkably peaceful since then, and that's very much a good thing. But what is the cost? We've traded frequent massive wars for an ongoing chance of complete catastrophe. What is that chance? If it's one in a million then maybe it's worth it. If it's one in a hundred per year, then we'll have purchased a few decades of peace at the cost of civilization. Based on the various near misses over the decades, I suspect the actual probability is closer to the latter. It does seem likely that there's no going back, but we should try really hard to make sure that the chance of catastrophe is as low as possible.
  - mnm1 8y ago
    Yup. Hard to say what that chance is. You're probably right with your estimate. I simply don't worry about it much in the same way that I stopped worrying about crashing when riding with my friend on the autobahn going 240km/hr or more. One mistake in either situation and I won't even know there was a mistake. The end. Likewise I couldn't control either my friend or the world's desire and manufacturing of nukes. So I simply stopped thinking about it and accepted it. Life is dangerous. But I am glad that some people in power are working on the situation just like there are people who do put speed limits on the portion of the autobahn that needs them and police officers who, I assume, try to enforce them. There's simply a million other more important issues in my life which I can affect and change.

WrtCdEvrydy 8y ago

We actually have slowly begun having less and less nuclear weapons, you just don't hear about it https://fas.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Stockpile-History.jpg https://fas.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Stockpile-History...

Synaesthesia 8y ago
It’s still plenty enough to destroy the world. We’re still spending money to modernize nuclear weapons, and now Russia and China are too, a logical response.
avar 8y ago
This is true, but once you start looking into it is highly misleading. A huge (and maybe only) reason for this is advances in targeting systems. In the 70s and 80s targeting systems were much worse, so you might expect to send tens of nukes to destroy a single reinforced bunker, since many would miss by hundreds of meters to kilometers. So often you needed tens of nukes for a single strategic target. Nowadays targeting systems are so good and launch / reentry vehicles so reliable that a single nuke can hit exactly in the right x-y coordinate and in the exact z coordinate sweetspot to destroy that bunker. So you don't need as many. So the number of nukes has gone down, but the destructive power is quite similar, although I suppose in the event of an all-out war we'll have less fallout.
- Retric 8y ago
  Fallout is really bad. Radiation goes from a high lifetime cancer risk to LD 50/50 over a narrow (in exponential terms) band so twice the fallout can quickly kill a lot more people. Nukes really don't destroy that much land directly, the difference with nuclear war over regular ones is mostly just the fallout. The people intuitively scale up Hiroshima and say it's 1,000x as strong so it destroys 1,000x the area. But, it's non linear the giant hot ball of gas quickly gains altitude. Sure, the center get's more energy but it was destroyed anyway. Also, the atmosphere cuts radiation exponentially with distance. So, if you block 1/2 the radiation at X, then you get 1/4 at 2x and 1/8th at 3x. Thus doubling only increases the lethal radius by X rather than say 5x which is the original lethal radius. (Note it's more complex as radius also reduces the received dose directly, and radiation turns into heat etc.) PS: You can estimate direct damage as ~10000 * ~100 square miles (most nukes are sub 1MT) ~= 1 million square miles. But, the earth has 57 million square miles of land. So ~2% of total land though much of this would be over water as many cities are coastal. So, if you could ignore fallout and each nuke was targeting something else most land would still be untouched.
- wongarsu 8y ago
  The ideal outcome of a nuclear war would be an exchange that destroys all military installations of all sides with the smallest nessesary nukes and no civilian casulties. In that sense, increased targeting capabilities are great. Now we just need to work on not targeting civilians, not destroying the electrical grid, minimizing fallout etc.
  - kosievdmerwe 8y ago
    That defeats the purpose of MAD and makes the use of nuclear weapons more likely. If the response to a nuclear attack is devastating then there is less chance that one will attack in the first place. I firmly believe nukes are the reason we haven't had world war 3 yet. If no nukes existed the USA and the USSR would have gone at it in the 60s/70s.
    - quacked 8y ago
sehugg 8y ago
Meanwhile, we're building tactical nukes again, and signaling that we're willing to use them (and that somehow we can avoid further escalation): https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2018/07/24/tactical-nuclear-weapon-launches-into-development-with-pentagon-policy-bill/ https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2018/07/24/tactical-nuc...
- profalseidol 8y ago
  Cause Russian meddling.
hnzix 8y ago
> having less and less nuclear weapons Disarmament didn't work out so well for Ukraine...
- macintux 8y ago
  I'm skeptical it would have been a realistic deterrent in this case. If Russia decides it's time to annex the entire country, on the other hand...
  - jacobush 8y ago
    Seriously? Even a remote possibility of having Moscow flattened would have deterred an attack. Remember, it's the leaders who decide to nuke, there's no referendum of the people. North Korea have tiny, impotent toy nukes and everyone around them are very careful.
    - macintux 8y ago
      The problem was it wasn't an "attack" in the classic "hey we're at war" sense. Russia is pretty good at fostering conflict on its borders without being blatant enough to make nuclear retaliation palatable.
      - jacobush 8y ago
        The dynamics change when you have nukes to back your regular forces up. The Ukraine could have thrown 100% of their conventional forces at the invasion, if they would have had a nuclear threat getting their backs. As it stood, they could not mobilise because that would a) have left their flanks open because their conventional forces were in such a sad shape and b) going all in with conventional forces would have been an invitation to Russia to counter and crush them - think Russian tanks in Kiev. And it could be spun as a "legal war" and be over until the rest of the world knew how to react. If on the other hand, you at all times have a bunch of ICBMs in your back pocket, Russian blitz krieg is not in the cards.
        8y ago
Symmetry 8y ago
We really need to cut the stockpile to 300 deployed nukes and institute a no first use policy. That level of deterrence is enough to enough to make a nuclear attack madness but drastically reduce the likelihood of a civilization or species ending nuclear winter should they be used. This is, I think, an achievable goal though obviously larger reductions would be better.
RachelF 8y ago
The nuclear option actually limited the war. The Syrians were scared of going past the Jordan river, because of Israeli nuclear threats to Damascus. "On the night of 8 October 1973, Israeli PM Meir authorized the assembly of thirteen 20 kiloton tactical nuclear weapons for Jericho missiles at Sdot Micha Airbase and McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II aircraft at Tel Nof Airbase." https://fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/farr.htm https://fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/farr.htm
profalseidol 8y ago
Oh I heard about the US backing off Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Treaties. And it's probably because of Russian hackers.

dhimes 8y ago

We have to take God out of the equation. It's just impossible to deal with people when they are doing it for $Deity.

reitanqild 8y ago
The history of China, France, Soviet and others tells us that it is impossible to deal with people even after trying honestly to remove God from the equation.
dougmwne 8y ago
I'm downvoting because your reply didn't seem to contribute to the discussion constructively. I'm replying because I really don't see how any mainstream religion in any way would advocate thermonuclear war or MAD, and in fact think religions would generally abhor it. Israel being close to using nuclear weapons seems to be entirely a secular matter driven by the nature of nation states, game-theory, and self-preservation. Religion in this case is just a prop and could be seamlessly exchanged with appeals to history, culture, race, or patriotism.
- dhimes 8y ago
  This is probably not the place for a lengthy argument, but I'll simply note that "mainstream" religion is kind of a straw-man, and most adherents fall into one-or-another sect. I was in a church in the U.S. South many years ago, a church that is definitely mainstream there. The preacher that evening actively advocated killing Satan worshippers. Not figuratively, but literally killing them. Nobody in the congregation disagreed. "I don't want them around. Do you?" I started thinking hard about the whole God thing after that. Religion is a very powerful tool that I believe is exploited for control. I'm sorry if I offended you. But I totally stand by my claim.
  - jki275 8y ago
    That's a very abnormal position for any member of any church in the US to take. I've been in many different ones and never heard anything like it.

adventured 8y ago

It's impossible to build a world free of nuclear weapons. A lot more countries will have them in the future, not fewer. North Korea, the poorest country on earth, has demonstrated how it can be done by anyone. Before that Pakistan and India demonstrated how easily it can be done with minimal consequences. Poor and small nations will always be at an extreme disadvantage when it comes to conventional military conflict. Taiwan would love nothing more than to have a 100 nuke stockpile right now, it's the only way they don't get invaded and annexed by China against their will. There is nothing that can stop China as things are today, the US isn't going to commit suicide to save them from annexation. Those nuclear weapons are the ultimate deterrence when facing off with an overwhelming opponent, another thing North Korea correctly figured out. There's no scenario where countries like Pakistan or North Korea don't pursue nuclear weapons to compensate for their weakness or specific context. To say nothing of that pursuit on the basis of conquering rivals or ensuring dictatorships or kingdoms. Iran is guaranteed to acquire nukes in the near future, both for their desire to be able to stand-off with Israel on an equal footing and to deter the US. Iran can't fight with the US in a conventional manner at all, the US can disable their entire economy and take down their air force and navy without ever invading. There's one tangible solution from their point of view. If you're Vietnam, and China becomes a monster bent on conquering Asia, with a $40 trillion economy and an unlimited supply of soldiers, how do you stop them from taking your country? There's one answer. Until there are no very powerful military nations, and all nations have similar numbers of soldiers, budgets and hardware, nuclear weapons will remain desirable for defensive purposes if nothing else.

crdoconnor 8y ago
>North Korea, the poorest country on earth, has demonstrated how it can be done by anyone. North Korea is not even close to being as poor as the reputation bestowed upon it by the US establishment. If it were, space rockets and nukes would simply have been out of the question (as they were in the 90s). You don't tend to find the best rocket scientists living in mud huts. It's still hardly a rich country but industrially they're surprisingly profligate and while their famous famine weighs heavily upon them (esp. in the form of stunted heights) it was 25 years ago. About the only thing there is still a massive, visceral shortage of is oil (because embargoes).

mnm1 8y ago

You can't guarantee a decent existence, nuclear weapons or not. We certainly didn't have one before nuclear weapons existed. It seems to me the peace we have obtained in the last seventy years or so throughout a lot of the world is due to nuclear weapons, not despite them. It's almost certain the US and USSR would have fought a war if it weren't for their presence. Same with a lot of other countries. Seems to me like there is no going back anyway so we should be thankful for the relative peace that exists now likely due to their presence.

mikeash 8y ago
I completely agree that nuclear weapons are the major reason there hasn't been a world war since 1945. The world has been remarkably peaceful since then, and that's very much a good thing. But what is the cost? We've traded frequent massive wars for an ongoing chance of complete catastrophe. What is that chance? If it's one in a million then maybe it's worth it. If it's one in a hundred per year, then we'll have purchased a few decades of peace at the cost of civilization. Based on the various near misses over the decades, I suspect the actual probability is closer to the latter. It does seem likely that there's no going back, but we should try really hard to make sure that the chance of catastrophe is as low as possible.
- mnm1 8y ago
  Yup. Hard to say what that chance is. You're probably right with your estimate. I simply don't worry about it much in the same way that I stopped worrying about crashing when riding with my friend on the autobahn going 240km/hr or more. One mistake in either situation and I won't even know there was a mistake. The end. Likewise I couldn't control either my friend or the world's desire and manufacturing of nukes. So I simply stopped thinking about it and accepted it. Life is dangerous. But I am glad that some people in power are working on the situation just like there are people who do put speed limits on the portion of the autobahn that needs them and police officers who, I assume, try to enforce them. There's simply a million other more important issues in my life which I can affect and change.