42 ms·
US halts recent practice of disclosing nuclear weapon total
- thatoneuser 8y agoI also saw russias recent video of their new insane weaponry. I don't have the long term scope on this section of the news, is this just routine flexing on both parts or is something more serious going on?
- steve19 8y agoRussia has been publishing videos about ultra high tech weapons and even doing comical leaks of "secret" defense technology for years. I remember one "leak", although I can't remember if it was the nuke torpedo or something else, where they were doing a press briefing about some weapon but "accidently" left a classified poster up in the room detailing some super secret high tech weapon. It was clearly put there so the press would see it and make headlines about secret new Russian technology. Even if legit, they are prone to hype it. I wouldn't worry about it, anymore than they worry about darpa's latest experiments. Sure maybe one day we will have easily cooled rail guns... But nobody in Russia is worried on the off chance we we actually figure it out in 25 years time. The worst offenders are definitely Iran who are known to outright fake photos of weapons tests that never happened (or happened poorly).
- baybal2 8y agoI doubt that anybody in Kremlin realistically believe of their ability to provide real military deterrence. The deterrence here was of political nature. I also don't believe that any sane military strategist in NATO high command believes that any conflict with Bloc can be won with nuclear advantage. Even at the height of cold war, the combined nuclear arsenal of NATO countries would've only been enough to destroy 1/3rd of USSR's military under ideal circumstances. Unlike common misconception suggests, war and politics is not always the same. What may look as a sure win for a general, may look like a loss to a politician: Russia's choreographed invasion of Georgia had no real military objective, and may be seen as a botched war, but it was a total victory on the political stage, scaring shit out of many politicians in the West.
- derefr 8y ago> Even at the height of cold war, the combined nuclear arsenal of NATO countries would've only been enough to destroy 1/3rd of USSR's military under ideal circumstances. Is there a reason nuclear weapons would be aimed at military targets, rather than political targets? I always assumed a nuclear war would just be a bunch of decapitation strikes where suddenly nobody has capitol cities.
- darkpuma 8y agoI can't provide you with a good source for this at the moment, but it's my understanding that during the Cold War a team of US ethicists determined that the most ethical direction to point nuclear weapons was at major population centers (not military targets) because targeting military targets would be necessary to launch a first strike. Targeting civilians signaled that those weapons were intended for retaliation. Adopting a retaliatory posture was considered to lessen tensions, if only by just a little, making nuclear war less likely to occur. Edit: @justin66: Right, there is a difference between what a few ethicists determine and what policy is actually enacted. America was actually postured for a first strike, with Russian airfields,etc being the highest priority targets, urban-industrial targets being lower down the list. After that, population centers were considered targets. This was based on the supposition at that time that a Russian attack could be anticipated and preempted. https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb538-Cold-War-Nuclear-Target-List-Declassified-First-Ever/ https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb538-Cold-War-Nuclear...
- pcnix 8y agoI would love a source for this, or any further reading recommendations on similar topics.
- darkpuma 8y agoThis is not the particular source I recall, but is related: Kavka, G. S. (1978). Some Paradoxes of Deterrence. The Journal of Philosophy, 75(6), 285. doi:10.2307/2025707 (https://sci-hub.tw/10.2307/2025707 https://sci-hub.tw/10.2307/2025707)
- darkpuma 8y agoAs I understand it, the so called KANYON/Poseidon nuclear torpedo is likely a real project, albeit with somewhat exaggerated capabilities. The Project 09852 / Belgorod submarine is certainly real, and there is some reason to believe it is being created in part to carry and launch those massive torpedoes. But supposing its claimed capabilities were accurate, 10,000 km at 100 km/h would take the torpedo over four days. The original claim of 185 km/h is much faster, but travel time would still be measured on the order of days. It's fast enough to be very noisy but slow enough to be seen coming days away; totally nonsensical for a first strike weapon. The conclusion is that if such a torpedo is in development, it's intended as a retaliation weapon.
- AstralStorm 8y agoOr perhaps covert local-ish deployment from places closer than 10 Mm. Essentially a medium range torpedo with higher top speed.
- darkpuma 8y agoYes but used in such a role, there would be little that's special about it. Nuclear armed torpedoes and short range missiles aren't new. What's special about KANYON is specifically it's range and payload (but frankly the payload could be a tenth of what's advertised and it would still be a chilling weapon, so really the range is the real interesting part.) It's likely it would never be operated near it's maximum range, but would nevertheless be operated at few thousand kilometers. The reason for this is because its likely host, the Belgorod, would be safest operating under the polar ice cap where sonar is, relatively speaking, a clusterfuck.
- siffland 8y agoWould not that of violated the I.N.F treaty? This is a serious question because I am not sure.
- SiempreViernes 8y agoNo, INF treaty is about ground launched weapons, the same thing launched by boats are fine. On of the things the Russians did was to take a boat launched weapon capable of INF prohibited ranges, putting it on the ground but only testing it out to ranges allowed by the INF. )I think they put something heavier on it so it wouldn't go as far as the naval version.)
- pps43 8y agoThat's Status 6 [1]. Unlike other more questionable developments, this one seems to be real. It's even mentioned in US Nuclear Posture Review. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status-6_Oceanic_Multipurpose_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status-6_Oceanic_Multipurpose_...
- fenk85 8y agoLiterally fake news, the state of Science and engineering in Russia is dire, the generation that was brought up under excellent Soviet schooling is dying off or retiring (keep in mind male life expectancy in Russia is on par with Africa). The people who designed, built and maintained their advanced technology are dying off and there is only a trickle to replace them, anyone with an advanced degree and experience tries to get the hell out of that country for a better life. I be very worried about nuclear meltdowns in coming years as there are still Chernobyl class plants running and are crumbling.
- SiempreViernes 8y agoDepends on what you mean with routine I guess, but it is a clear regression to the times when total nuclear war was the logical end awaiting all conflicts.
- factsaresacred 8y agoRecent and relevant talk on Nuclear Weapons and International Security by John Mearsheimer here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdvdKdnpCRg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdvdKdnpCRg > "Great powers constantly try to gain nuclear advantage over their rivals and they do it because there is powerful incentives to do so" > "The ideal strategy is to be the only power in the system that has nuclear weapons...however desirable this situation is, no state is going to achieve nuclear monopoly in our lifetime. (So) the best outcome a great power can hope for is to acquire the capability to launch a splendid first-strike against each of its adversary" Being opaque on capabilities when it comes to nuclear weapons (especially when other great powers are being opaque) makes strategic sense.
- baybal2 8y ago> US halts recent practice of disclosing nuclear weapon total I think America's biggest error in WWII was the disclosure of nuclear weapons existence. If America was able to keep that secret, it would have had the one and only card in its sleeve that could've stalled USSR's tank armies in Europe. Remember guys, the nucler detente in Europe was not something given until eighties, and would've somebody more ambitious came to USSR's political arena instead of Brezhnev, even that would be under question. WWIII in Europe was barely avoided twice with Stalin's unexpected death, and Khrushev's "retirement." That gave NATO 20+ years to prop up defences.
- robertAngst 8y agoI wasnt even alive then, and I think this is insanely too simple. >If America was able to keep that secret There is no America, there is the United States government. Americans did not want to join in World War 2, the president did. When the time came to drop the nuclear bomb, these decisions were made by few people, and the popular theory is that the Democrats(incumbent) would have lost elections if the war went on, Americans died, and people found out about the Nuclear Bomb later. The best decisions for the world are not made, the best decision for individuals are made. I wonder what will happen when Putins or Xis back are against the wall politically. What horrors will they do for self preservation? EDIT: Don't downvote because the Democrats were in power at the time. The Republicans would have done this too.
- bonoboTP 8y agoHow do we even know they disclosed the true numbers before? This is a serious strategic game (in the game theory sense) and what and whether they disclose may be just part of the game. Who can check that the numbers are correct? And could they credibly prove it? Would they be interested in (allowed to) do that?
- close04 8y agoI guess the actual number wasn’t the point. Disclosing any number would send a signal of transparency, while stopping the practice would suggest the opposite. It could be consciously used as a deterrent by signaling that you are adopting a different, more aggressive strategy. It doesn’t necessarily mean anything (substantial) has to change in the background.
- dosy 8y agoHow do we know Earth even has nuclear weapons anymore?
- darkpuma 8y agoCall it a less dumb Pascal's Wager of sorts. The possibility that they still exist is high enough that it's only rational to tread lightly under the assumption that they exist.
- dosy 8y agoSure (and cool reference,) but to me, "prudent to act as if they exist" is not the same as "they exist." Even if they don't, there's still much strategic utility to extract from pretending they do.
- SiempreViernes 8y agoFor one thing it was very close to the open source estimate, meaning the number is consistent with other publicly known facts about the program. There also isn't any real gain from keeping the total number secret above the advantage that keeping their location secret gives. Not disclosing totals probably doesn't even make napkin level invasion planning harder since at that level reasonable estimates will do. On the other hand it does make you a more suspicious actor in the strategic game as hiding harmless information is a clear sign of paranoia.
- minikites 8y agohttps://oversight.house.gov/news/press-releases/multiple-whistleblowers-raise-grave-concerns-with-white-house-efforts-to https://oversight.house.gov/news/press-releases/multiple-whi... >The report warns that that White House efforts to transfer sensitive U.S. nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia may be accelerating after meetings last week at the White House and ahead of a planned visit to Saudi Arabia by the President’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner Between the originally posted link, the link in my comment, and Rick Perry bailing out of the Department of Energy, this is shaping up to be a very grim situation.
- adolph 8y agoWhat’s wrong with Perry quitting Energy? Wasn’t his appointment an elaborate practical joke, in that it was the federal department he wanted to shut down but forgot the name of?
- mrguyorama 8y ago>Wasn’t his appointment an elaborate practical joke, in that it was the federal department he wanted to shut down but forgot the name of Do not downplay this appointment. It was not a joke. Attempting to dismantle government institutions is stated republican policy.
- pps43 8y agoThe experimental reactor being sold to Saudis is not capable of producing enough plutonium. And they don't have any reprocessing or fuel enrichment capability.
- SiempreViernes 8y agoIt's not about giving them nukes, the worry is about giving the foundation to a domestic nuclear weapons program.
- pps43 8y agoThey can do domestic nuclear weapons program any time they want. The technology is 60 years old, and they have enough money to do it.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y agoAfter a brief period of time when the cold war was over and the threat of imminent nuclear annihilation at least seemed to be a thing of the past, the people of the US collectively decided that there just weren't enough existential threats in their lives and elected morons to make things more interesting.
- mrguyorama 8y agoI did not elect this moron. A two century old relic of old white male and slave state empowerment did, against my wishes and the slight majority wishes of my fellow countrymen and women
- colejohnson66 8y agoAre you implying that everyone who voted for Trump is a racist? Because that is patently false. Yes, Trump may be racist, but just because someone is racist, doesn’t mean everyone who supports them is racist. Also, the argument that majority rule is what should elect someone is wrong for many reasons; The biggest being that the constitution is what created the electoral college. Yes, the electoral college has issues, but it’s the best we have when only 58% of the voting population turns up.
- mullingitover 8y ago> Are you implying that everyone who voted for Trump is a racist? Not everyone who votes Trump/Republican is a racist, but if you're a racist you almost certainly voted Trump/Republican because you believe they're most likely to advance your agenda. > Also, the argument that majority rule is what should elect someone is wrong for many reasons If believing that every citizen's vote should be of equal weight is wrong, I don't want to be right.
- Ntrails 8y ago> If believing that every citizen's vote should be of equal weight is wrong, I don't want to be right. Ok, so let me suggest that it is a problem if the cities have complete control over the course of policy. In principle pure majority is obviously just, but i don't think it is without consequence. Especially in the UK where London has all the money _and_ a-lot of the votes - i think it is worth some consideration?
- doggydogs94 8y agoDisclosing military data (like nuclear weapon counts) is just a bad idea. Granted, the approximate numbers are not that difficult to figure out, but why give it away for free; make Russia and China expend resources to get the data.
- doggydogs94 8y agoI didn’t realize you held elective office.